Diversity, inclusion and the super power of curiosity

Welcome to episode two of the Forensic Psychology Podcast. I'm Sally Tilt. And I'm Dr. Karen Zahokun. And we work for HM Prison Amplification Psychology Service. And are based in the Midlands, working across a number of prisons. Between us, Sally and I have 40 years experience working as forensic psychologists. And this podcast is a chance to hear the real voice of real forensic psychologists. The Ministry of Justice is the biggest employer of forensic psychologists in the UK. You can follow us on Twitter at HMPPS Psychology or Podcast Forensic. And find out more about recruitment and careers at the Ministry of Justice at jobs.justice.gov.uk. And now, new for series two, you can also email us at [email protected]. And Karen, so this has been one of the delights of this series receiving emails from people that are listening to the podcast. And so just to say thank you to Chelsea, who is a student at the University of Greenwich. We enjoyed receiving your email. Thank you. And also to Sarah, who's just joined HMPPS as an occupational psychologist. And it's great to hear about people who aren't forensic psychologists who are also listening to the podcast. But you've got another email that you were going to tell us about. Well, I was also going to mention a couple, Sally, there was Peter from Australia, who was working in a Fendlin Pavy program's over there. So it was really great to hear from people spread out across the globe. But more locally, we've had an email from Megan, who's at Bangor University. Now she loves listening to the podcast, is looking forward to the next episode. And is currently in her second year of her degree. So although the podcast has given her insight into what to expect, what she wants to know is where she can look for placements so she can get some experience. So for anyone listening who's at the start of their career, we'd suggest checking out our bonus episode with Neil Gradecki, which is out now. And we're talking there about where you can look for posts, how you can apply. And also we touched on very briefly about the importance of experience before you apply. That's a good top tip there, Crenzer. And as Crenzer said, that should be in people's podcast feed now. So on with today's episode, then, Sally. Today, we're joined by Martin Radcliffe, and we're going to talk about diversity and inclusion. So Martin is a chartered and registered forensic psychologist, who's worked in HMPPS for 20 years. She is a vast array of experience working with different clients, including young people, men, women, and those with life sentences. Her current role in Psychology Services Group is the national diversity and inclusion lead. Martin has always been passionate about DNI, and this has been amplified for working with children and becoming a mum, and from her personal experience as a mixed race woman working within HMPPS. So it's great to have you on Martin. Welcome. Hello, Crenzer. Thanks for having me on. Oh, we're really excited about today. So before we get into the meaty stuff around what DNI is and what that means for us as forensic psychologists, we would like to start by asking people how they got into psychology. So can you tell us, Martin, how you got into psychology? Well, I think one of the main reasons I got into psychology was my grandad. My grandad had challenges with alcohol, and he was physically unverbally violent against my nan that led to them becoming divorced when I was just going into secondary school actually. And I think as I got older, I really wanted to understand how this man had a lot of facets to him, how he was so amazing in so many areas. But then some of his choices to me were completely baffling at the time. So I really wanted to understand more about why he did what he did, why he made the choices he did. And as I got older and got to know more about him as a man, I guess rather than just a grandad. I started to kind of see the bigger picture and that human beings are very complex individuals and one plus one doesn't actually make two. And so when I was at school, I started to choose my A levels and at that point, even though I was kind of pondering on all this stuff, I ended up having a free period where there was a psychology A level taster. And I was hooked, kind of doing psychological tests and they talked a bit about nature and nurture and kind of decided that I thought that psychology might be of interest. So that's kind of how I went down the path of psychology. And it occurred to you at that stage, Martin, that a career in psychology would perhaps help you understand your grandad and everything that happened with him. Yeah, I really thought it would help me understand the complexities. And as I kind of engaged on my psychology journey, I get as I started to realise the portrayal, I guess, of individuals that perpetrate intimate part of violence as an example. You kind of see this image of them have been bad people or mad people. And I think I started to realise that there's no such thing as a bad person from the minute they're born to the minute they pass away. And that we're actually really complex human beings and a lot of things make people vulnerable to certain behaviors. And I think that started to really unpick that for me. It's amazing, isn't it the different reasons that people join a forensic psychology career or psychology career more widely? Yeah, I'm just really interested in your lived experience and how that took you into this career. And is that why you picked forensic psychology, Martin, because of your experience with trying to understand why people are? Yeah, I think so. I was really fascinated by that. And I think I felt that would kind of help me traverse into social inclusion work. So I guess that kind of goes on to why I'm really passionate about diverse inclusion from a young age, from primary school. I live with my nan and granddad on a very white, counsellor's day as a mixed race child to my dad is, like Caribbean, my mum's white British. And I can still to this day remember the two of the mixed race children in my school. So that gives a picture of how white the school was and how I guess I really stood out. And I guess coming from a counsellor's day and as a mixed race kid, I was very aware of inequality from a young age. My nan was very active in the union. I think they were called shop stewards back in the day. And I would often hear of stories of inequality that people have been treated so poorly. On the back of something that I felt was why are they treating people on the basis of that they're a woman or their black or that they're from a counsellor's day, it totally baffled me. And it made me really aware of the systems of inequality that exist when you come from disadvantaged, when you come from a marginalized group. I also experienced verbal and physical racism as young as primary school actually at the hands of fellow students that was teachers, that was parents overtly making comments. And so I was really aware of from a young age, this narrative of needing to work that bit harder that I felt there was no space for error. And I really grew up with a lack of representation around me and I really saw the impact of that on how I guess you validate yourself and how you feel other people perceive you. So I guess growing up in the eighties, unless I wanted to be a comedian, I remember seeing Lenny Henry on TV or an athlete, I didn't really see any any kind of representation in the oppressions and leadership. And so I kind of grew up really wanting to amplify others awareness of this and help make people understand that we don't all start from the same start line. When I started to understand about forensic psychology, I thought this is the place where I can really think about social inclusion as well. It's an interesting point isn't it because when we look at the populations of prison, this whole social disadvantage really cuts across those populations and I think, you know what you see is social disadvantage then follows people into prison. Yeah, absolutely. Social disadvantage does and then it's kind of perpetuated and then that's still part of someone's narrative coming back out of customer, which I think still kind of has a massive impact on how you view yourself and others. And so for me, that's a really important part of the rehabilitative process, you know, we want people to be their best selves, be their authentic self, so I think that's part of the work. This is always one of my favorite bits of the conversation listening to the rationales and the reasons behind why people got into the roles they've got into it. We've used the team diversity and inclusion already on the podcast. Should we start with the definition? It's obviously in your role title as well, Martin, what do you mean when you talk about diversity and inclusion? Well, for me, diversity is that rich tapestry we see in society. So I guess those differences, which are often linked to kind of characteristics of our identity and our personality like race, sex age. But the inclusion bit, I think this is the bit that enables diversity to thrive. So this is the how bit. So how do we create a climate or culture where people feel they belong? How do we enable people to feel comfortable and confident and bring their whole self to work as an example that they're not making themselves feel palatable or different or smaller to fit in? And how do we support people, I guess, and the people under our care to make them feel heard and seen and safe to speak out? And I guess how we embrace difference and how does this help us to grow as people, because I think as practitioners, we need to be growing all the time as well. So I think the inclusion bit is the crux bit. I think they work hand in hand. That's a helpful definition, which demonstrates the breadth of what we're talking about really. I wonder if you could say a little bit too about how that fits with protected character. characteristics and and areas that people that may spring to mind when people think about diversity because it sounds like you're describing something there, which is which is a very broad concept. Yeah, so I guess for anyone that is not aware of the protected characteristics, these are characteristics which are protected from discrimination under the quality act of 2010. So there's nine protected characteristics which are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, race, sex and sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity and religion and belief. So there's nine protected characteristics and that legally protects people from discrimination and I guess the fact we've got an act shows that those individuals that have those characteristics have been discriminated at some point in our history. In our history and continue to be so that's why diversity and inclusion is so important and that's part of the agenda that people with individual protected characteristics that shouldn't be a barrier to access or a barrier to inclusion and that's what diversity inclusions in my eyes. It's its ultimate goal that irrespective of protected characteristics, you should have equitable outcomes like anybody else. Great, thanks Marti because the protected characteristics as you say, it sounds like they're an attempt through the legal system to provide protection for people but actually what we're going to talk about today is broader than that. It will include the protected characteristics but also how you sort of neatly describe that concept of inclusion that people should feel safe and represented and involved within whichever setting we're talking about. Let's move on to prisons particularly in forensic psychology. What would you describe as the key challenges for diversity and inclusion within prisons at the moment? One of the key challenges is we don't operate in a vacuum so the criminal justice system is made up of so many working parts and we work with so many other professionals. So an individual starts I guess their criminal justice journey so to speak with the police and then the sentencing and then there's coming into custody working with probation system as well as psychology officers on wings and landings. And so we don't operate in a vacuum and we can operate in systems that are at a different point I guess I'd say in their DNI journey and we can operate in systems that may be slightly resistant or individuals that are slightly resistant to the change and that can be from various reasons they might feel actually we're we're doing a great job as we are there's there's not any problems in this area. So I think that's one of the key challenges I think another challenge we have as a psychology service group we're a largely homogeneous group and what I mean by that is the psychology profession is largely white female and middle class but we're working with a hugely diverse population in society but in in custody where it's extremely diverse and I'm sure we'll come on to speak about that. So I guess the questions we're left with is as a largely homogeneous group how do we relate to people that are different to us and how do we understand their experience and avoid tapping into our own biases because if we are not aware of our own biases and we don't understand that the impact of those biases can be really far reach him. And without even knowing because ironically a lot of biases unconscious and that could really impact on our ability to give our best when we're implementing practitioner skills to build rapport or complete assessments with individuals or kind of complete one to one interventions. I was just thinking as you were talking there and you mentioned about relationships and I was thinking about the therapeutic relationship and you touched on as well the differences between the predominant characteristics of forensics psychologists relative to the people that they're working with. And if I ask the question why would that matter you know does it matter and why would that matter why do we need to attend to that. What matters is I guess we absorb the systems around us and we're brought up in certain ways and you know you can't get away from that but if we're a largely homogeneous group you can get into territory of things like group thought for example so if you're all from very similar backgrounds with similar characteristics you might be in danger of not having enough critical friends in that space to go out on a minute should be looking at this way or should we be looking at that way. Yes, then the lived experience that those individuals may have may not be completely relatable to the individuals that someone's working with and there might not be a full understanding of what that individuals gone through so as an example someone might be very suspicious and come into an assessment and not really want to engage. Now without any kind of digging that might be put down to a invasive or negative attitudes problems with authority whatever that may be but actually there might be lots of reasons why that individual can't engage from the get go and if we haven't gotten understanding of that and we haven't got that lived experience we could be missing something that we could later down the line miss interpret that does make sense and I think I wonder if people listen might be thinking well we're in a pickle. They're in a pickle then aren't we because you've described that difference between the characteristics or the dominant characteristics of one group prepared another and those things aren't going to change very speedily and also I suppose I'm thinking are we saying that really you need to match up people within the therapeutic context that all their say protected characteristics would be in line with the person that they're seeing within the therapeutic context. Now I think it's just being really mindful that you won't understand necessarily all that lived experience so I think those key steps you can take to still work with an individual irrespective of their protected characteristics. So I think one key step is really understanding your own biases and privileges because I think that will assist you with being more objective so I think that's a really important thing to do and I think it's about doing the work. So if there's an individual that's you're working with that you kind of start getting an understanding of a case and you realize actually we're very different with very lived experience. One way of finding out is asking the individual you know they're an expert in their own life you know they've lived their story they know their challenges they know how it feels and I guess using our super power of curiosity that I think we've got a psychologist and kind of asking them we're not the same. I can't begin to understand necessarily your lived experience tell me about it and I think that's really important and I think going back to our blind spots our own biases once you know that you can start thinking right where are the gaps? Where do I maybe need to gain advice from individuals whether it's community groups charities or the professionals where I can I gain advice on those gaps that I've got in my knowledge because I think that's a crucial way to really understand how to prepare for an assessment. And build rapport and I guess the other thing is understanding the fact that those protected characteristics are under the equality act suggests that they would have faced numerous inequalities during their lives. So I think if you can understand the systemic inequalities and social injustices of that marginalized group and the impact that might have on their agency. So you can start to think about how to prepare for an assessment or how to build rapport with that individual. If there's a takeaway phrase from this episode party and I think it may be for me the psychology is super power of curiosity. Absolutely. So I might come back to that one again and I'm going to pop it in my toolkit as well. I might come back to some of those concepts in a minute and how they apply particularly within the specific tasks that we do within forensic psychology. I wonder as well and could you tell us a little bit more about your role and when it started and where we are within HMPPS in forensic psychology generally. I think I took on the role around 18 months ago, diversity inclusion has always been an aspect of HMPPS's work. But for me, I think if I'm completely honest, I think it's dropped on and off the radar at times and I think anyone and I'm sure people have seen this in the media. Every time kind of things happen that really evoke emotions and are traumatic against a particular group of marginalized group. There can often be a reactive response and a lot of energy around DNI for a certain amount of time until it fades away. And so often, I guess if you're going to use an emoji for it, people have got the eye rolling emoji that here we go again until it's forgotten. It's always been out there, but I think I've seen in the last 18 months definitely a real change particularly since I've been in the service that it really feels that the agenda's here to stay and there's energy and engagement and there's a momentum around it. And while I'm the DNI lead for the psychology service group, there's wider teams in HMPPS really working towards diversity and inclusion as a golden thread across our part in the criminal justice system. I was just going to agree with you that my personal experience has been that it does feel that there's real momentum and change and difference that it's happening. I was just wondering about the eye rolling emoji. I wonder as well whether one of the predominant emojis that I'd throw in there is the little face with the worried fearful grin kind of across it. Oh, the grimace, the grimace emoji. Yeah, absolutely. And I wonder why is it that we're sometimes fearful or we avoid talking about issues around diversity inequality, do you think? I think the concerns I've seen from fellow practitioners, fellow psychologists and in wider society, even when talking with my family. a ffamli, mae'r ffamli, mae'r ffamli yn ymwyr i'r rhom. A'r ffamli yn ymwyr i'r rhom. Mae'r ffamli yn ymwyr i'r rhom. Mae'r ffamli yn y ffamli yn ymwyr i'r rhom. Mae'r ffamli yn ffamli yn ymwyr i'r rhom. Mae'r ffamli yn yr rhom. Mae'n ei gweithio bod yn ei gweithio yn ei gweithio bod yn ei gweithio bod yn ei gweithio bod yn ei gweithio bod yn ei gweithio bod yn o'n ysgwyr, ac mae'r ysgwyr ysgwyr ysgwyr ysgwyr ysgwyr ysgwyr ysgwyr ysgwyr ysgwyr y maen nhw i'w i'w i'r ffordd o'r gysylltu, i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'w i'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r rhaum. It doesn't feel like often people consider racial or the intergenerational trauma that someone will have absorbed from decades and hundreds of years of a particular community being oppressed and what that means. When they come into a therapeutic space or an assessment. Yeah, I think that's really important. And I'm wondering about tipping it on its head, Martin, and viewing this from the other direction because you mentioned earlier about privilege. And I wonder whether what we also need to be doing is starting to figure in our formulations, people's experience of privilege and what that means for who they are as a person and their behaviours. Yeah, I think that's a really good point, actually. I think it's twofold. I've been thinking about this recently, but I think what we know is privileges is kind of having advantages and benefits, which have been afforded to you purely on the basis of belonging to a particular group or having a particular characteristic. And I think that is really important to explore with someone, I guess, on the flip side of that as a practitioner. I think that's maybe something that people need to be exploring when they are setting up the tone of their assessment or intervention. So something I've been discussing recently with colleagues is having some form of positionality statement in your assessments that lays out where you're coming from, your privilege and the power that you're possibly wielding in that space and how that kind of maybe has impacted on the assessment. Or where that maybe limits the assessment in some ways and how you've mitigated against that. And I think that's really important. I don't think we do it enough. I don't think you often see on journal articles either. I think you very rarely see anything that says actually a particularly in work around lived experiences of marginalized groups. I'm always interested who are the authors because if they're very, very different to that group, I think that's a really important thing to declare because then you can make a decision on what that means and what impact that might have had in that individual's ability to get the information out that's necessary for that to be a valid piece of work if that makes sense. It's a really good point. I think I've seen reports which say the person didn't open up or the person didn't disclose this and I don't think I can recording a report that said and that could be because of me as the person doing the interview that in some way had caused a barrier for that person. I just pondering here and I guess for all the psychologists out there listening, how would that feel? It's quite a frightening thing. I'm just wondering how people would feel about taking ownership of something. It's interesting isn't it? Taking your ownership. We might need to add some superpowers. I think absolutely. I'm just thinking about as you were talking Marty and again, flipping it on its head stuff about so we might need a position statement about, you know, the privilege that we might take to the assessment. I think there's also that inherent power anyway in psychology settings, but particularly in forensic settings that we can't get away from. What about scenarios where we're interviewing a client or working with a client who comes from a position of privilege and actually perhaps we as the psychologist are coming from a group that's more likely to be disadvantaged so light yourself, Martin. That is a tricky dynamic and I've been in those positions where I've really had to unpick that in the space and own it as an individual but kind of raise it with that person. I mean, that's gone down well and not so well in other areas, but I think you're right. I don't think I've given that enough attention early on in my career. The kind of stuff we're talking about privilege, I think that it's a really interesting thing to kind of unpick with the people under our care. And if there was a better understanding, I think that would help maybe with unpicking some of the work that that individual might need to do to go back into systems that unfortunately are going to be around the bin round for thousands of years, they're not going to go away, but how do possibly that individual navigate that in a way that won't retraumatise them. And when they go back into the community or make them suspicious of, I don't know, they're the support from their probation officer or working with future psychologists. And I suppose thinking about how we talk about that in our risk assessments as well. When we're looking at risk assessments, I guess taking it back from the discussion bit because you're in the thick of it by then. I think before we even get to the assessment stage, I think what we need to be doing from a diverse inclusion perspective is really thinking about the tools we're using, the interviews we're using, the psychometrics, or the psychological tests that we use, and really thinking about what evidence base that we're using here. What were the characteristic features in these research studies? Did they feature samples used? What were their samples that validated this tool? And I guess, does the assessment we plan to use have the flexibility in it to represent important cultural factors or important characteristics relevant to that individual? And then the back to that, what do we know? And if there is gaps, how do we seek expertise and consultation? And I think that's something we could get better at. I think since I've taken on this role, I've been thinking about wider professions and thinking about the work that sociologists do as an example. And other professions that actually would probably help fill some of these gaps and providers with other expertise and dimensions that would help us make these assessments more objective and make sure that we're understanding all of the person and the context of their behaviour and the power systems that they're operating in. And I think all of that is crucial to our risk assessments going forward. And I think it goes back to what you're saying about responsivity bias, because I think in forensics, we've perhaps been more tuned into the need to perhaps have a different risk assessment for women or for people learning disabilities. But I think for race or people who are deaf, for example, we've not thought about that so much, we've perhaps just applied them. I was reading a paper not so long ago, I think it was published in 2016 or 2015 about a Canadian high court ruling that said that things like the static 1999 were not applicable or were not as valid for Canadian ab originals. And there was some research to base that on. So it's so important, isn't it, to go back to what you were saying and think about where did this tool come from? Who was it originally meant to assess and how well does that match the person in front of me today? Absolutely, I think it's crucial. I think sometimes if someone is in the UK, that's enough for us, if that makes sense. That doesn't mean that because you'll see UK sample brilliant at home or, you know, US sample, that's quite quite close and that kind of stuff. I kind of went on some training recently and was talking about acculturation and when is someone assimilated into UK ways of doing things UK behavior, just because you live here, it doesn't mean that you haven't gotten nuances in your community that are different to the UK as that particular assessment tool sees it, I guess. I think it's so important because without these considerations on top of really understanding your biases, it can really impact on how you even interpret demeanor, behavior and sometimes people's dress and hairstyle and all of the experience can really impact on what we deem appropriate and acceptable and how we form opinions on people and even whether we think someone's telling the truth. That would have a massive impact on assessment, so it's crucial that if we don't know, again, the messages, that's absolutely fine. You can't know everything as a human being, you can't know everything as a practitioner, but I think we just need to develop, I guess, support systems, via other professionals on where we can seek information. And I guess that community outreach is really important, I'm a big believer in to understand communities, go out there and talk to the communities, my experiences, I've ever had a case and I'm not obeyed with that particular cultural community. a'r unrhyw i'n gweithio, a'r unrhyw i'n gweithio, a'r unrhyw i'n gweithio. yw'n ddod yw'n gweithio'r llwys i'n gweithio'r llwys i'n gweithio'r llwys i'r llwys i'r llwys i'r llwys i'r llwys i Mae'r ffordd i'n yw'n ffordd yw'n ffordd i'n ffordd yw'n ffordd yw'n ffordd yw'n ffordd yw'n ffordd yw'n ffordd yw'n ffordd yw'n ffordd y Mae'n gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r gweithio'r ac yn yng Nghymru i'r cymrydd i'r cymryd i'r cymrydd yng Nghymru, ac yn cymrydd i'r cymrydd i'r cymrydd i'r cymrydd i'r cymrydd i'r cymrydd i' Mae'r ffordd sy'n ei'r ffordd o'r ffordd sy'n ffordd sy'n ei'r ffordd sy'n ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd o'r Mae'n mynd i'r ffordd oeddwn i'r ffordd oeddwn i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i o'n gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod yn gwybod yn i'n yw'r i'n ni'n ni'n ni'n ni'n ni'n ni'n ni'n ni'n ni'n ni' Mae'n fawr yng Nghymru yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yng Nghymru yn fawr yn yng Nghymru yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yn fawr yn f yng Nghymru sy'n gwneud ac yng Nghymru sy'n gwneud sy'n gwneud yng Nghymru sy'n gwneud sy'n gwneud sy'n gwneud sy'n gwneud sy'n gwneud sy' i ddoddau, ac mae'n yw i ddoddau o'r i'n ffordd o'r i'r i'r ffordd o'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i'r i' i'n gweith o'n gweith sy'n gweith o gweith o gweith o gweith o gweith o gweith o gweith o gweith o gweith o a'r gwybod i'r gwybod i'r gwybod. Mae'r gwybod i'r gwybod i'r gwybod i'r gwybod. Mae'r gwybod i'r gwybod i'r gwybod. Mae'r gwybod i'r gwybod. Mae'n gweith i'r gweithio, mae'n gweithio yn gweithio yn gweithio yn gweithio yn gweithio yn gwe I'r Llywodraeth gyda'r Llywodraeth a'r Llywodraeth a'r Llywodraeth a'r Llywodraeth a'r Llywodraeth a'r Llywodraeth a'r Llywodraeth a' Mae'n i'n meddwl am y gweithio hynny'r gweithio hynny o'r gweithio hynny'r gweithio hynny o'r gweithio hynny'r gweithio hynny'r gweithio hynny'r gweithio hynny' Mae'r rydym, mae'r rydym, mae'r rydym yn nid i'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio. Mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio. A'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio. Mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio. Mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio. Mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio, ac mae'r rydym yn ni'n gweithio. passion and so if you have any questions for either of these guests please do send them into us at [email protected] and meanwhile don't forget to follow us on Twitter at HMPPS Psychology or at Podcast Forensic and find out more about recruitment and careers in the Ministry of Justice at jobs.justice.gov.uk so for me Karenza Hockum and for me Sally Tilt see you next time.