The Coroner, the Coroner's Investigation, and the Coroner's Inquest hearing are placed at the fulcrum between ‘Public’ concerns and ‘Private’ relationships. The function of the procedure is to give voice to those issues surrounding an individual death which are legitimately concerned with Policy and social management. When death occurs in ‘State’ care the function of the coroner is fundamental to the public airing of concern over any issue of state control. This article considers the implication of that function where death is considered self inflicted, and takes place in prison. In these circumstances, it appears that the function of the coroner and the hearing is to personalize and individualize circumstances of care and control. This in turn obscures Public consideration of State control, and creates a sub-category of ‘prisoner and family’ with concerns not raised in Public court.

The current austerity in government spending has far reaching implications, not only for individuals but for the context in which a welfare state is perceived. The position has been reached at the same time as equality legislation makes some groups more visible. This article is an early attempt at drawing out the relationship between lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people and welfare spending cuts, made observable because of legislation requiring impact assessment. This article draws on research into impact prepared by the author, in affiliation with the Bradford LGBT Strategic Partnership, and considers LGB claims to welfare and to citizenship.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to interrogate ways in which sex and sexual orientation are excluded from the agenda of work relationships in one probation service.Design/methodology/approachThe research was conducted through conversational interviews with members of a team responsible both for supervision of colleagues and for development of supervisory practice. Straight and lesbian officers responded to a perceived lack of skills to effectively “work with” sexuality issues.FindingsResponses lead to discussion of the discursive “silence” of sex, and to the specific positioning of lesbian identity. Specifically, it critiques approaches to supervision that do not explicitly value lesbian experienceResearch limitations/implicationsThis small study does not include the voices of black or gay male officers. It also does not explore the experience of bisexuality.Practical implicationsThe finding of this research can be used to support development of good supervisory practice.Social implicationsThe paper sheds light on day to day interactions that “silence” experience of sexual orientation.Originality/valueThe paper draws on original research interrogating both lesbian and straight experience. In so doing it sheds light on both discursive practices of a sexual agenda and practice issues in supervision.

No abstract

No abstract