The Root of the Problem

It might appear that there was never a time when Plebgate and Andrew Mitchell weren't in the news. One of the most tawdry episodes in public life for years just keeps rolling along, with the developments in the last week of two arrests made in relation to the evidence of the confrontation.

It would appear that politicians past and present have no limit to the hypocrisy and spin that they will go to in order to make their point. The Newsnight piece on Plebgate last night was another case in point. Even though Mike Pannett and the new PCC of Surrey, Kevin Hurley did their best to add balance, there was a great deal of bias shown. Even the presenter Kirsty Wark resorted to a gratuitous snipe about the average wage of police officers being over £40k. It'd be a bit like saying that the average wage of Tesco employees is £40k. That might be correct mathematically but it's a simply misleading way of representing pay levels. I don't know how Newsnight arrived at that figure but I would wager that it is statistically distorted by higher wages of Chief Inspector and above.

Even if there are police constables out there earning over £40k then that's because they work (at a guess) 500-750 hours a year of directed overtime on top of normal hours. Police work doesn't pay a shift premium as such, unlike other jobs out there, so now ask yourself - would you work on average a 60 hour week of shifts, getting sworn at, spat at, punched, kicked, stabbed and shot at - for £40k? Also, and this was the point Newsnight conveniently glossed over, would you start doing that for £19k?

Lord Baker mentioned the police becoming politicised. Well fancy that, a public service that fights back in the face of idiotic and ruthless idealogical reform. Lord Baker mentioned the conduct and political conduct of the Federation. Oh, the irony. From a former MP.

(At least 7 MPs have been convicted of criminal offences in the last 2 years to my knowledge, not including the House of Lords. That's a little over 1%. Equivalent to around 1400 convictions of police officers. Where's the moral high ground now?)

Lord Baker mentioned on Newsnight that the police don't like this Government. I can't imagine a greater misconception. It's not that police don't like this Government, it's that the police recognise that this Government doesn't understand the job, doesn't understand what it takes, and doesn't respect those that do it.

Exhibit 1 is this speech in 2006 by David Cameron. In it we find these gems:

"The truth is we won't deal with crime until we reform the police."
"You can't be tough on crime unless you're tough on police reform."
 

Ah. So never mind what causes crime in the first place, or any sort of cohesive social policy. It's the police's fault. We really shouldn't expect much more from a man who's spent the first half of his time as Prime Minister blaming everything on Labour. People are now having to use food banks (up sixfold since 2010) and South Yorkshire police report an increase in people shoplifting basic provisions like food. Never mind that. That's Big Society in action. Let's reform the police instead.

"This year, each police officer, on average, will make under 10 arrests. That's not even one a month."
 

Here we start to see the real nub of the problem; the lack of understanding of the role. I suspect, but I don't know, that he simply took the number of arrests and divided it by the number of officers. Quite apart from the fact that arrests do not define police work, there are large numbers of officers who are not in roles which make arrests. Everyone above the rank of Inspector, for instance. Officers recovering from long-term injuries in the line of duty. Officers in specialist roles.

"Police officers are relatively well paid - better, in fact, than teachers or nurses."
 

I don't want to put teachers or nurses down. They do a fantastic job. My wife is a teacher. But teachers don't work shifts. Nurses do, but they are relatively unlikely to be killed or seriously assaulted at work. Neither treads a fine line between putting criminals in the dock, or ending up there themselves. You could in fact argue, that a police officer has to have parts of the role of teacher and nurse, plus a few others besides. The Tories don't get that though. Police, teachers, nurses are - as far as this Government are concerned - a financial drag on the economy.

"Some officers today have second jobs. In one force, as many as one in fifteen are in this position."
 

Notice the perjorative language. President Obama would praise hard-working Americans who struggle on, holding down two, three or four jobs in order to pay their way. Not here. Not if you're a police officer. That's bad, somehow. And in order to prove it, he'll mention that less than 7% of officers, in one of forty-three forces, are holding down second jobs. And of course, he doesn't mention that this is usually with the written consent of the Chief Constable.

"So the fifth priority in reforming police pay and conditions should be to insist that policing is a full time occupation in all but exceptional cases."
 

Like, for example, being an MP? Or a Police and Crime Commissioner? His government have allowed Police and Crime Commissioners to take a salary from the public purse of around £70k per year, and they don't even insist it's a full time role to run the police!

"So enhanced entry schemes should make it possible for talented people and professionals to join the police later in their careers and at all ranks."

Lest we forget, the Hillsborough disaster was caused by the incompetence of the scene commanders in their mismanagement of the crowds, and was covered up by senior managers too by removing any criticism of management from officers statements. That's going to improve by parachuting in the winner of the 2013 Apprentice is it? Again, they don't understand the role.

Possibly the most important thing to note is this: the speech was given in 2006, before the financial crash. At a time when debt as a percentage of GDP was lower than when Labour came to office. Public finances were in good shape, relatively speaking. So these reforms are not about cutting the deficit. They never were. This was always going to happen, crash or no crash.

Exhibit 2 is Theresa May. National Policing Conference, 29th June 2010

"But targets don’t fight crime; targets hinder the fight against crime. In scrapping the confidence target and the policing pledge, I couldn’t be any clearer about your mission: it isn’t a thirty-point plan; it is to cut crime. No more, and no less."
 

16th August 2011 just after the riots around the country.

"As Home Secretary, I've been clear from the beginning that the test of the effectiveness of the police, the sole objective against which they will be judged, the way in which communities should be able to hold them to account, is their success in cutting crime. I haven't asked the police to be social workers, I haven't set them any performance indicators, and I haven't given them a thirty point plan, I've told them to cut crime."
 

In the same speech, I found this:-

"This is one reason why, in addition to his work on pay and conditions, I commissioned Tom Winsor to produce a second report into the long-term future of policing. As part of this second report, I asked him to consider how we can introduce direct entry into the police - including the most senior police ranks - so that suitably qualified outsiders may apply."

Note, not "should we", or "might it be a good idea if" or "will it damage the service" but "how can we do it"! Winsor's much trumpeted "independent" report was nothing but a front to see how they could crowbar their preconceived notions into the service.

This is where ignorance turns to arrogance;

"Earlier this year, when I scrapped the last remaining police targets, I told commanding officers: "I couldn't be any clearer about your mission: it isn't a thirty-point plan; it is to cut crime."

One chief constable, who has since retired, told the media afterwards that they only spent about a third of their time dealing with crime, and that the job wasn't as simple as "just catching criminals."

Well I couldn't be any clearer: cutting crime is the only test of a police force and catching criminals is their job.

And when people have the power to hold the police to account through elections, any commissioner or chief constable who doesn't cut crime will soon find themselves looking for a new job."

So - May has been told. "It's not that simple", from the horse's mouth. A Chief Constable. She acknowledges that she's been told. But she ignores the experience and opinion of those who know, and presses on regardless.

During the recent floods, police intervened to keep people safe. But according to Mrs May, that's not their job. Their job is to cut crime. No more, no less.

And in this year's speech to the Police Federation Conference, in the context of mental health;

"And we have also agreed to consider the transfer of commissioning of all police health services to the NHS as soon as possible. That means health professionals will look after mentally ill offenders and victims, not the police – because that is their job, not yours.

I don’t want police officers doing other people’s jobs - the police are crime-fighters and that is the job I want them doing."
 

Again - a clear demonstration that she does not understand the job. When a person is suspected of involvement in a crime, it's the crime (the police's job, according to Mrs May) that gets priority. Any information regarding mental health comes later. Sometimes much later. So - does the police officer walk away at this point? Of course not. It's this kind of "fine on paper but lacking in detail, and unworkable in practice" that we are seeing more and more.

"But the crime fighters will remain police officers, patrolling will not be privatised and policing will remain a public service, accountable to the people and carried out by consent.

It will only ever be police officers who make arrests; it will only ever be police officers who lead investigations; and it will only ever be police officers who direct policing operations." [emphasis added]

Patrolling has already been, in part, privatised. Police forces have been, and continue to, put work out to private tender which includes patrolling, detaining suspects, and investigative work. Notice the neat little qualifiers "lead" and "direct" in that quotation.

Going back to Newsnight - it's not that the police don't "like" this Government, as Lord Baker put it. The police recognise that they are fighting for their very survival. Fighting against an arrogant Government that does not understand the job and refuses to listen. Public safety is being put at risk. If the police did not fight against that, they would not be doing their jobs.

 

Proposal for Performance Related Pay Scores F

Who takes the greater credit? The worker who sows the seed, or the one who harvests the fruit? If the environmental conditions are too wet, or drought sets in and the crop fails, has the farmer been any less diligent? If these questions seem too ludicrous to contemplate, consider them in the context of performance-related pay for teachers. This is the latest idea from Education Secretary Michael Gove to “reform” the performance of teachers.

 

Michael Gove is just as qualified to be Education Secretary as I am. That is, not at all. I never cease to be amazed by how successions of Secretaries of State insist on meddling & interfering in professions that they plainly know nothing about. Although the Coalition has a spectacularly wide spectrum of incompetent Ministers, actually this determination to aggravate, agitate and generally get in the way is a characteristic of most Governments. The last Labour Government certainly had its fair share of guilty fiddlers.

 

It is hard to know exactly where to start with Gove’s latest brainwave. It has so many holes in it, the concept is virtually see-through. Firstly, I don’t imagine that too many people join the teaching profession with dreams of fast cars, riches and international travel. Historically, like most of the other Public sector professions, teaching was considered a vocation; a way of life. This may be a difficult concept for any politicians, let alone Tories, to grasp. Alien as it may be to Gove and his cohorts, there are people to whom the contribution to society is primary, and fiscal concerns are secondary. This is not to canonize teachers or to paint them as beyond the lure of pecuniary reward – after all, they have families and needs as we all do. My point is that these are intelligent, well-meaning and articulate people. If they had wished a high-paying job above all else, they would have worked in a bank, or anywhere other than in a school.

 

If ever there was a situation which was ripe for visitation by the law of unintended consequences, this is indeed it. There are any number of ways one might predict this playing out, and probably a few that we won’t predict. Nonetheless, permit me to hazard a guess at a few probable outcomes.

 

Schools in deprived areas will find it harder than ever before to recruit, and retain, teaching staff. If a sizeable percentage of their income is directly linked to results, then teachers will want to be at the best schools in the most affluent areas.

 

Schools in deprived areas will find that they are only able to attract newly qualified teachers, who will depart to a better school at the first opportunity, or teachers with longer service who aren’t good enough to get interviews at leading schools.

 

Any extra-curricular or sporting activities which are currently staffed by teachers out of goodwill, will cease. These will be replaced by work aimed at professional development for the staff, or work for the pupils. There are already complaints about children being taught to pass exams, instead of being given an education, and why does this happen? It’s caused by the pressure created by school league tables. Now, these same chattering classes are driving education further along that road that they say they despise.

 

What is patently clear from all of this is that Gove, the Department of Education, and the Conservative Party, do not understand education. Education is not a factory process, where you take some raw material, apply some rigid processes which have been shorn of all flexibility in the name of efficiency, and at the age of 16 out pops a rounded, well-educated young adult. Education defies any simple analogies, but the best that comes to mind is that of a relay race. Each teacher that touches the life of a child, runs with them for a year before passing the baton onto the next teacher. It’s true that not every race comes out as any of the participants might have wanted it, but the key thing is that it is a team effort. Each person can run the race of their life, but that does not guarantee results. If Gove was running a factory, he would be poking each employee with an electric prod whilst taking a cleaver to their pay, terms and conditions. He would make a Victorian workhouse owner blush.

 

Alistair Campbell stated on Radio 4’s “Any Questions” on Friday and wrote in his blog (http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2012/12/15/the-media-love-michael-gove-but-the-any-questions-audience-was-not-so-gullible/) on Saturday that Gove was deliberately attempting to provoke a confrontation with teaching unions in order to further his own political profile, whatever the effects on children’s education. That may or may not be the case, but Gove is well on course to becoming the most despised and notoriously incompetent Education Secretary in history.

 

Who Needs A Time Machine?

It's often said in politics, as well as other areas, that hindsight is 20/20 vision. The meaning is that when we see where we've ended up, it's sometimes obvious that we've taken the wrong turn somewhere.

 

It's usually the defence of the politician with egg on their face from whatever decision they made that has just been shown to be totally the wrong choice. More often than not, it can be a fair point. Knowing where you'll end up when you take a choice is typically guesswork to a greater or lesser extent.

 

Not only do you not know where you'll end up, you also usually have no way of knowing what would have happened had you done nothing or even remained on the same course. In this I am reminded of the tale sometimes titled "Appointment in Samarra":

 

A merchant in Baghdad sends his servant to the marketplace for provisions. Shortly, the servant comes home white and trembling and tells him that in the marketplace he was jostled by a woman, whom he recognized as Death, and she made a threatening gesture. Borrowing the merchant's horse, he flees at top speed to Samarra, a distance of about 75 miles (125 km), where he believes Death will not find him. The merchant then goes to the marketplace and finds Death, and asks why she made the threatening gesture. She replies, "That was not a threatening gesture, it was only a start of surprise. I was astonished to see him in Baghdad, for I had an appointment with him tonight in Samarra."

However, in the case of the UK Economy, we are indeed blessed with a map and other tools. You remember this don't you?

It's the display for the Time Circuits in the famous DeLorean time machine from the Back To The Future movies. It showed the time in the place you were heading to, the place where you are now, and the place where you were.

 

Now read this brilliant article from the New Yorker about Austerity Economics, if you haven't already. It explains that the US strategy compared to the UK strategy amounts to a natural experiment, with the simple conclusion: Austerity doesn't work. It's the Economic equivalent of the Emporer's New Clothes.

 

In our Back To The Future example, the place we left in 2010 was called "Economic Growth", the place where we are now in 2012 is "Triple-Dip City" and the place we are heading to, if we remain on the same path, is known as "Portugal".

 

I feel truly sorry for the Greek and Portuguese people. At least our austerity wounds were inflicted upon us by our own (admittedly, unelected) Government. The wounds that are bleeding Europe dry are mostly being inflicted by the German Government. In effect, the Germans are holding countries like Greece and Portugal to ransom. If this was being played out as a film script, it might go like this. Every week, the captor says "I will continue to feed you only if you cut off one of your fingers". What happens when the hostage has no more fingers remaining?

 

 

 

John F. Kennedy: still relevant today after almost 50 years

The Eternal Flame at the grave of John F. Kennedy.

Arlington National Cemetary, Washington D.C.

 

 

November 22nd 2012 marked the 49th anniversary of the notorious passing of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas. Kennedy's inaugural address contained several phrases that are now well-known, but it also included some less familiar remarks which are as relevant today as when they were first spoken in January 1961. Some of those phrases look eerily back from the page, with our knowledge of what has come to pass since their utterance. You can find the full text here.

 

It might well be a surprise to consider than the life and Presidency of John Fitzgerald Kennedy still has relevance in 2012.

 

Last week, when the Leveson Report was published, and the subject of the "free press" was being stretched to breaking point, I thought of Kennedy and the press of his time. It came as something of a shock to America, some years after Kennedy's death, to learn that he had the most unquenchable sexual appetite. He was neither discrete about his conquests, nor faithful to his wife. It was an open secret amongst White House staff, the Secret Service, and - amazingly - the White House Press Corps. Kennedy was having illicit relationships with interns, secretaries, prostitutes and numerous others, sometimes even in the White House.

 

It seem inconceivable today that Kennedy could have got away with this right under the noses of the press. It's not much of an exaggeration to say that Kennedy made Bill Clinton look like a shy Boy Scout. So how did he get away with it? Simple. Although the press knew that it was going on, the collective decision of the newspapers at the time was that Kennedy's personal morality, or the state of his marriage, was the business of the Kennedys alone. It was held that it didn't affect JFK's ability as a President and besides, it just wasn't "done" to expose a man's infidelities in 1963. It wasn't in the Public Interest. How times and attitudes have changed. It's an interesting contrast; reporters in possession of material that they could have published but chose not to. Now we have such information published purely because we can, regardless of whether there is true public interest or not. They publish because they can; they do not consider if they should. They publish in the name of the "free press" and occasionally vomit apologies over those who have been affected by their lack of judgement.

 

We could perhaps draw an analogy to someone with eating disorders. Presented with an endless array of food, they will gorge themselves until they are incapacitated, followed perhaps by resentfully regurgitating all over those around them. A more rational person will evaluate the food and make a wise choice about what to consume, and will have no need of vomiting.

 

Of course by today's standards, the extramarital relationships of a President would be inarguably in the public interest. In the time of John Major's Government, and the infamous "Back To Basics" campaign of family values, it turns out that practically everyone was at it. Hyposcrisy of the highest order. However, I don't much care if a certain footballer or celebrity has been sleeping with people they shouldn't have, unless their "selling point" is family values or honesty for example. To me that is not in the public interest, however much the public may be interested. There is a distinction to be made.

 

I thought about Kennedy some more. Perhaps the most well known of his quotations comes from that inaugural address in 1961:

And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

 

Kennedy inspired a generation of Americans. He created the Peace Corps, a group of volunteers doing good things all over the country and the world. The Freedom Riders sought to oppose inequality in the South.

 

Fast forward to today. Enter David Cameron. Like JFK, Cameron is the wealthy son of a wealthy father, and the husband of a wealthy wife. Cameron has his "Big Society". So why hasn't Cameron's "vision" taken off in the same way that Kennedy's did?

 

It could be the times. It could be that we are more cynical now. My own opinion is that whilst asking for the help of the nation, Kennedy did not simultaneously demonise the poor in America, lamblasting the "something for nothing culture" while at the same time asking the people to contribute voluntarily. Kennedy did not set the American classes against each other, or promote inequality. Kennedy was wise and politically astute, Cameron is not.

 

Kennedy's Inaugural speech finished with this paragraph:

 

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.
 

"Ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you." You can argue that the population was politically more naive in 1961, before Nixon and Watergate, but it seems plainly obvious today that any politician who came out with this line would get laughed off the podium. Perhaps these words should be permanently displayed in the corridors of Westminster.

Who'd have thought that the late John F. Kennedy would still be teaching us things, nearly 50 years after his death?

 



What now for the UK Press?

<p dir=ltr>Today we finally heard from Lord Justice Leveson and his conclusions from his eight-month inquiry about press standards and their relationship with politicians and police.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Predictably there has been generally more focus on press standards rather than the other terms of Leveson's remit. In recent days there has been a lot of hyperbole, most of it from sections of the press. Some of it has been disingenuous to the point of being deliberately false. One of the worst, or most vocal, has been Fraser Nelson of The Spectator. Nelson made headlines the day before the report was published by announcing that The Spectator would nit participate in any sort of statutory regulation, as if there were a choice.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Earlier today at 7.42pm Nelson tweeted this: "By my maths, the moment of maximum danger lasted 99 minutes: from Leveson proposing state licensing of press to Cameron rejecting it."</p>
<p dir=ltr>This statement is provably false on two counts. Firstly, Leveson never proposed state licencing of the press. On the contrary, he said that his proposal "could not be characterised as state regulation". Secondly the Prime Minister has not rejected Leveson's proposal. He has stated that much thought and caution should be entered into before going down that road. Either Nelson has been wilfully false or, giving the benefit of the doubt, he has simply seen what he expected to see whether it was there or not.</p>
<p dir=ltr>There has been a few instances where people who should know better have not been altogether forthcoming. For example, David Blunkett MP was on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning discussing this issue. Unusually we had a Conservative MP, George Eustice, advocating regulation whilst Blunkett (a Labour former Home Secretary) wanted none of it. What the listener was never told is that Blunkett is paid over &#163;49000 per year by Murdoch-owned press companies. There are several members who are, either clearly or otherwise, with vested interests in the press retaining the current regime.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Another tactic which is being used, unwisely, is an attempt to draw this issue down party lines. Liam Fox MP, whose ministerial career was torpedoed by the press, being the most egregious. He tweeted earlier;</p>
<p dir=ltr>"PM's instincts correct. Freedom to the right, regulation to the left. "One Nation" Labour exposed for the statists they are. #Leveson"</p>
<p dir=ltr>This conveniently ignores that there are approximately 40 Tory MPs who support regulation as well as Labour MPs who oppose it. This was a lazy partisan statement when clearly cross-party cooperation is what is required. Fox should remember that even the Deputy Prime Minister doesn't support Cameron. It shows politicians to be self serving and childishly territorial.</p>
<p dir=ltr>Leveson was clear that at times the behaviour of the press was totally unacceptable. That was perhaps an understatement. The press drove the daughter of actor Denholm Elliot to suicide. It has hounded various celebrities over their weight and their personal lives. It has notoriously hacked the phones of many many people including politicians, celebrities, murder victims families, and other people such as the Hillsborough campaigners and, unbelievably, the lawyer of the phone hacking victims!</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press knew this activity was illegal at the time and certainly morally wrong. It has gone through people's bins and even tried to use the children of their quarries as a lever to get them to talk to them. They knew it was wrong and they knew it was happening. They knew it was not the actions of a single rogue reporter as they initially said.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press was aware of the laws of contempt of court and libel, yet this did not stop certain sections from announcing the guilt of Christopher Jeffries in the Jo Yeates murder case. Even if Jeffries had actually been guilty, their actions would have greatly reduced his chances of getting a fair trial. It could even had prevented a trial from taking place at all. Jeffries was hounded for weeks by reporters and forced into hiding.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press, collectively, has not allowed the threat of regulation by its peers to dissuade it from not just printing stories that are intrusive, salacious and needless, it has employed unlawful and distasteful methods to collate the information in the first place. With this background, how can we trust the press to continue to arbitrate on its own conduct? This situation is untenable.</p>
<p dir=ltr>This is a situation entirely of their own making. If the press did not want to be treated like schoolchildren, then it shouldn't have acted like irresponsible adolescents.</p>
<p dir=ltr>The press, in attempting to justify itself, says that stories like the MP expenses scandal would not have been possible with state regulation. It's true that sometimes the press does print stories that are gained by clandestine measures that are unquestionably in the public interest. The expenses scandal is perhaps the best example of this. However I do not see why proper regulation could not have a true public interest test, either prior to or after publication.

I see no reason whatsoever why the print media cannot be regulated by OFCOM as broadcast media has been for a long time. The press might argue that broadcasters are required to be impartial. There is a good case that the same should be required from newspapers and, dare I say, The Spectator. However I see nothing wrong with opinion based news as long as its clear that there is an agenda.

The Police Service Still Shies Away From Examination

I was never the sort to pull legs off spiders or burn them under a magnifying glass. I was more interested in using that magnifying glass to examine, to search for fascinating detail and to learn. I grew a little more wary of examining spiders when, at about the age of six, one that was languishing in our old enamel bath bit my enquiring hand.

Obviously I meant it no harm, but it reacted with an instinctive defence mechanism. It lashed out against me in the only way it could.

A similarly thoughtless and unnecessary act of retribution has been meted out to a brave man of unimpeachable integrity, James Patrick. James is a serving officer in the Metropolitan Police. Earlier this year, dismayed by the onset of police reform driven by ideology rather than logic, by vested interests instead of necessity, James wrote a series of blogs called The Police Debating Directive. It is here on Blogspot.

In these well written blogs, he follows the trails and connections of most, if not all, of the key players involved. All, and I do mean all, of the information used is in the public domain, available to anyone with a search engine and an inquisitive nature. Like someone unpicking a sweater, he follows the threads wherever they go, as the edifice unravels around him. Not a single piece of information, save James's general experiences of being a serving officer, has come from any privileged sources.

It was in the process of reading these blogs that I discovered that the Association of Chief Police Officers, ACPO, is actually a limited company. Yes you read that right. A limited company is at the head of the UK Police service, and has been for years. Do I discern a conflict of interest?

The blogs relentlessly followed the motive forces behind police reform. The light shone by James got brighter and brighter even though the path got ever darker. Every measured statement is supported by facts in linked or footnoted articles.

In order to generate some much needed funds for the charity Care Of Police Survivors, the blogs were collated and self published into a book called The Rest Is Silence. This is available in Kindle form as well as hard copy and I heartily recommend you find a way of reading these collated essays.

The book and the content began to attract a wider audience. It gained attention in police stations across the country, by operational officers as well as those "upstairs".

It was almost inevitable that the spider chose to bite. James has been served with disciplinary papers for Gross Misconduct by the Met. I assume someone feels that James has brought the Met or service as a whole into disrepute. As I said on Twitter when I learned of this; "Some things are sad. Some things are predictable. Some are sadly predictable."

Disrepute. Yet what could be further from the truth? Had the subject of the blogs been a major corporation or even, say, the NHS, then the questions James has raised would, or should, be causing a great deal of soul searching in the national press and Parliament.

But this spider doesn't like to be examined too closely. Especially by one of its own. As soon as the cover was lifted, it scurried away in search of another hiding place and went into defence mode.

It is an accepted fact in the sciences that the very act of observation changes the nature of the thing you seek to examine. Except the dark and deep recesses of the police service.

Don't get me wrong, ACPO is mostly happy to throw its foot soldiers to the wolves periodically, to give the impression of being progressive. However when it comes to questions of real leadership, ACPO suddenly loses its fighting spirit. We could only speculate as to why. A cynic might say that Chief Officers are too busy toadying up to Government, ensuring their future knighthood or Peerage. In some cases both. Did anyone else notice that at the height of the Plebgate issue, Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan Howe refused to back the accounts of his officers in Downing Street, instead issuing a joint statement with the Cabinet Secretary encouraging everyone to 'move on'. In the last week or so, with Andrew Mitchell safely resigned, and almost as everyone forgot the matter, Hogan Howe now decides to say publicly that he thinks the officers were telling the truth.

I wonder, was the fence he was sitting on so high it took him that long to get down from it, or did he have at least one eye fixed on a cosy seat in the Lords to go with his police pension? I can't answer that question, but if I was a serving Met officer, I'd want an answer to that question. And one other question. Why is shining a light on (at best) morally questionable conduct by Ministers, Senior Officers, and think-tanks considered Gross Misconduct?

In the light of recent revelations about Hillsborough, the public needs to know that the upper echelons of the service are open to scrutiny. That it is not only open to examination, but welcomes the opportunity to show how the service has changed since 1989. That is, if it has at all.

The scandal of Hillsborough was that senior officers changed the accounts of lower ranking officers to silence or stifle criticism of those at the top. That philosophy still seems alive and well in 2012.

Smoke & Mirrors?

Today, 22nd November, the 41 Police & Crime Commissioners take office for the first time. Before lunchtime, we had seen the first casualty. The Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Police announced his "retirement" as Sue Mountstevens settled in for her first day in the job.

Nearly all of the candidates up and down the country campaigned on the promise of making police "more visible" on our streets. This sounds great, but there was usually little substance behind these claims. Some promised to achieve this through the use of Special Constables, and I've discussed this before - here and here.

The new PCC for Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis says in this article:

“There are simple solutions to some of the problems we have. Why are such a large proportion of vehicles unmarked? If we mark them up you could instantly double the visibility of police on the streets.

“I haven’t been able to find an answer as to why so many are unmarked, but we will do so.”
 

 I'll cut Mr Ellis a bit of slack as it's his first day in the job, but if he'd asked a few of his new colleagues he might have found out these reasons, for starters;

• The vehicle isn't marked because it doesn't contain a police officer. Scenes of Crime and Crime Prevention are just two roles that used to be filled by police officers and are now done by civilian employees of the Police or, increasingly, private companies under contract.
• The vehicle isn't marked because it's used for covert operations. D'OH! CID, Traffic, even neighbourhood and proactive teams all use unmarked cars for a very good reason. Sorry Mr Ellis, but if you don't understand that you're not fit for the role of PCC. But then, you probably think all the police are there for is to cut crime.
• Times when discretion is called for even if it's not actually for covert reasons. I would imagine that Family Liaison Officers might well use unmarked cars.

The biggest problem with this that I have is that if we mark up ALL police vehicles, regardless of whether or not an operational officer is inside it, then this is little more than an attempt to fool the public into thinking that there are more operational officers around than there actually are. We really might as well put cardboard cutouts around our neighbourhoods. (I know, some forces have actually done this already)

I've been taken to task via my blog, correctly, for having a go at PCSOs. Not PCSOs themselves, just the role. It's a role I disagreed with when it was introduced. PCSOs do a valuable job as part of the policing family. That's all well and good, but they are not sworn police officers - which is what the public actually wants. More than that - it's what the public thinks they are seeing when a PCSO is walking a beat.

I had a similar argument with West Yorkshire Police a couple of years ago. I witnessed some appalling driving by two cars from West Yorkshire Police, out of force area and without blue lights, and I phoned them to complain. To cut a long story short, the two cars were from the Driving School. The occupants were learning advanced response driving. I was told that the training cars used to be unmarked precisely because they could or had caused this sort of embarrassment to the force in the past, but that the Home Office had insisted that all training cars be marked to "increase visibility". What is the point of making them more visible if they are to all intents & purposes, not on operational duty? If my house is burgled, will those training cars respond? Of course not. So it's basically a confidence trick perpetrated on the public. I might as well paint "POLICE" on the side of my own car for all the good it would do.

So is this what being a PCC is about, in reality? Finding more ways to fool the public into thinking that they have more police officers than they actually have? If this is the case, then we can see why PCCs were introduced. It's a way to "democratically buffer" the blame for this from central Government, the ones who started this "smoke and mirrors" campaign.

Tory Hypocrisy on Turnout

The Police & Crime Commissioner votes took place yesterday, and turnout was low, as expected. Before the elections, both Theresa May (Minister for Government Incompetence) and Damian Green (Minister for Police Privatisation) both refused to specify a minimum turnout for the elections.

This is not surprising, given that the Tories have been vociferous in their opposition to strike ballots with turnout lower than they think should be valid.

Here's a few examples.

Francis Maude and Charlie Elphicke - Public Administration Committee - 28/11/2011 (Link)

Q412 Charlie Elphicke: Minister, isn’t there a basic point here that the strikes are taking place on turnouts of between a quarter and a third? How can it possibly be right for the few to hold to ransom the many? That is not just in the union movement, but across the country as a whole. [Emphasis added]

Mr Maude: It is true that the ballots held by the biggest unions-Unite, GMB, PCS, UNISON-had a turnout in no case of more than a third, and one case of not much more than a quarter; they were between 25% and 33%. Some of the other unions, particularly the smaller unions, had higher turnouts, in a couple of cases over 50%. That is the way the law is. Those union leaders who actually call for strike action on the basis of these extraordinarily low turnouts, particularly when they have argued that this is the most important issue facing their members for a generation, have a limited claim on legitimacy. In most circumstances, I think union leaders would have chosen not to go ahead on those very low turnouts.

Does it justify changing the law? That is not our first response. We think the strike laws, for the most part, work reasonably well, but every time there is a very low turnout, and a strike called on the basis of that turnout, the case for change, and the advocates for change, will feel their hand is strengthened.

 

Later in the same exchange, Francis Maude says

"The CBI have argued that there should be a requirement for there to be at least a 50% turnout; regardless of what the percentage voting in favour of industrial action is, the ballot would not be valid unless there was a 50% turnout".
 

 In this Telegraph article, on the PCS strikes shortly before the Olympics, there are rich pickings to be had on the matter.

Dominic Raab, the Tory MP, said: “These reckless and damaging strikes strengthen the case for a voting threshold, so the militant minority can’t hold the hard-working majority to ransom.

“It can’t be right that union bosses can paralyse vital infrastructure and humiliate the nation on a malicious whim, when just 11 per cent of their members support strike action.”
 

Fellow Tory Priti Patel said

"Any ballot in which fewer than half of those eligible to vote do so should be ruled invalid. This strike is yet another irresponsible protest by those who are once again putting their own interests before that of our county.”

 The outspoken Conor Burns had this to say:

“The idea that these cloth cap colonels can hold the public to ransom on a turnout of 11 per cent is grotesque and anti-democratic.”
 

This was the contribution of that well-known oasis of good advice, Francis Maude:

"If very disruptive strike action is carried out on the basis of these weak ballots, weak turnouts, the case for reform gets stronger.” 

At the time of the article, the Minister on the sharp end of these strikes before the Olympics was Damian Green who by coincidence is now Policing Minister. He said this of the strike action:

“This is a completely selfish and irresponsible decision by the PCS leadership. With only around one in 10 voting for industrial action, they have no authority to call their members out on strike.” 
 

Can we draw any other conclusion from this other than that the Tories are all for Democracy as long as the vote goes the way they want it to?

 

Why I Intend To Vote For My PCC

The Police & Crime Commissioner (PCC) elections are on this coming Thursday.

Many people, including serving and retired police officers have encouraged people not to vote in the election at all. The purpose, as I understand it, is to carry a message of low turnout back to the Home Office and Theresa May to show that the "public" don't want elected police commissioners.

Assuming that my interpretation is correct, I suspect that this would probably reflect the public mood. The percentage of the population that actively want PCCs would, I believe, be a vanishingly small number. A lot less than 10% but that's just my feel from listening to media coverage and from social media such as Twitter.

My own position is that I think that the PCC concept is flawed, foolish, unrealistic, unwanted and has the potential to create enormously damaging situations up and down the country. It's a costly waste of money at a time when experienced police officers are being forced to retire, despite the desperate claims of the Minister Damian Green claiming on BBC Question Time last week that it was ok as the costs of the PCC elections came from a different budget.

This strategy, of encouraging non-participation, omits one crucial element. The Coalition Government long ago abandoned any sort of pretence of representing the public view. The only agenda that matters is their own, whatever that may be. Unless criticism or opposition is vociferous and loudly carried in the media, they will just press ahead regardless; arrogantly assured of their own superiority. The Government in general, and the Home Office under Theresa May in particular, has no sense of shame. It will press ahead with whatever crackpot scheme, or defend any lie no matter how preposterous, as May has shown time & time again.

So why vote? A Labour candidate was recently asked on Twitter how a Labour candidate could stand when Labour opposed the whole PCC concept. The answer to both questions is simple.

The elections will happen on Thursday. Whether you vote or not. Whether Labour put up a candidate or not. As it happens, there are no "extreme" candidates (by which I mean EDL or BNP or suchlike) in my area. However, I immediately discount the Tory candidate on principle as we know what Tory police policy contains. There are a handful of Independent candidates. One of those could not (for some reason unknown) manage to supply even a photo or brief statement of intent to the website www.choosemypcc.com so I have no option but to exclude him. He seems a nice enough bloke (we have spoken briefly on Twitter) but I know nothing about him. The other Independents either don't carry enough gravitas for the role in my opinion, or there's just something that doesn't quite click about them for me.

My vote on Thursday will be going to John Prescott. Yes, he's a politician, but he has experience of life, as a working man. He's managed even larger budgets than the Humberside Area, and I know he knows the area and the people well. He may not be perfect, or all things to all people, but he seems to me to be the only viable candidate in my area.

You may not agree with the PCC concept. You might like to send a low turnout message to Theresa May. Mrs May is arrogant enough to not care if turnout nationally is 5% or 85%. PCCs are here, and they're here now. Even if you can't find a candidate you endorse 100%, then find the one that you think will do the least damage and vote for them. It's not a positive message, I know, but it's more positive than not voting at all. Come Friday evening, your area will have a PCC whether you voted or not, whether you wanted one or not. So please, pick the best of the available candidates and vote. Not voting, and getting a disastrous PCC via a low turnout seems to me to be a Pyrrhic victory that will do no one any good. Least of all you.

Special Constables Part 2

Earlier this week, I wrote about how PCC candidates are planning to use (or misuse) Special Constables. I ended that blog by saying that the role needed to be radically rethought to cope with modern demands.

I've had a few thoughts since then. It's as though it's been brewing inside me for years.

The most obvious thing is that there needs to be some way of balancing the flexible needs of the Specials with the needs of the organisation, to know that people will turn up when planned. Fire brigades manage it with retained firefighters, so it can't be beyond the wit of man.

Secondly, Special Constables need a damn sight more protection than they currently have. There can be few jobs where the dividing line between being the hero, and being nailed to the wall by your Force, the Courts and the Press is so thin. To do so from a voluntary standpoint, on the face of it, makes no sense at all. Why would ANYONE do this? The Police Federation have never looked fondly upon Specials for several reasons I won't go into here. There needs to be a national body to look after the interests of Specials.

Special Constabularies really need to differentiate between those who are really looking to get stuck in (whether as a route to the regulars or not) and those who wish to retain the status quo as assistants to the regulars. Bedfordshire was doing something similar by around 2003 but it didn't go far enough.

My last point is a bit more political. I mentioned how Specials felt exploited compared to the TA or fire. How on earth does this Government expect to be able to recruit & retain people to fill, voluntarily, a gap in policing that THEY created, whilst a series of millionaire politicians (who have mostly never done a days real work in their lives, and will never have wondered how they will afford their kids' shoes) bang on about the evils of a 'something for nothing' culture. The irony seems to have completely escaped them.

"Come and work for free to help us silly old twits out of a hole. We do seem to have cocked up rather. Oh, I should probably mention that if you stuff up in any way you'll be completely on your own and will probably end up in court. If you need us we'll be over here demonising people whose jobs we destroyed for claiming benefits."

Special Constables and PCCs

There seems to be much debate in the media at the moment about the role of Special Constables in the post-Winsor austerity era, particularly as they seem to be being used as a football by candidates for Police & Crime Commissioners.

Some candidates have stated that they will allocate Special Constables to operate in particular areas, an intention which has been criticised as impinging on the operational independence of the Chief Constable.

Other sections of the political spectrum as suggesting using Specials as, effectively, a replacement for the "regular" police officers that are being lost around the country as part of the Government cuts to policing.

As you may know, if you've read some of my earlier blogs or follow me on Twitter, I was a Special Constable for about eight years, from 1998 to 2006. I have never applied to be a full-time officer, and have no axe to grind against regular officers who do a great job in difficult circumstances. I was proud of my time serving in the Special Constabulary and it's something that I will always be glad I did.

Now to deal with the two points raised earlier.

Firstly, it seems blatantly obvious that allocating Special Constables to a particular problem or area is an operational decision, depending on several factors including frequency, hours, skills required and risk assessment. It is not a decision for a PCC. (Similarly, it is equally ridiculous for a PCC to say that that won't let "their police" get involved with a potential public order event like a badger cull, but that's another story)

The second point is that the people proposing to use Specials in lieu of paid police officers appear to be assuming that the skill levels are equivalent, or that the skill level of your average Special is sufficient (which is the same as saying that regular officers are overskilled or surplus to requirements). A full time Constable has a two year probationary period. Assuming approximately 2050 hours a year, that's a total of 4100 working hours, during which their paperwork is monitored closely and their skills assessed by a Tutor Constable for a lot of that time. Specials are "targeted" to do about 16 hours per month (many don't do this much), making approximately 200 hours per year. So after 20 years service, a Special will have put in as many hours as a Constable just out of probation. The elephant in the room is that, in my experience, not many Specials last more than about 5 years before leaving. They leave for a number of reasons; some leave because they become "regular" officers. Some leave because they feel that they can't offer sufficient time in between family and work commitments. A lot leave because they feel under valued and exploited, and with good reason. Members of the TA and Retained Firefighters are paid for their service and are well trained to do their jobs. Special Constables earn only travelling expenses and limited subsistence. Training leaves a lot to be desired. When I joined, if I recall correctly, initial training was 14 weeks of one evening a week. By the time I left, that was down to 8 weeks.

Special Constables are of course a much cheaper way to provide a uniformed presence on the streets, in the same way as a Kia is a cheaper mode of transport than a BMW. From the outside they might even look identical, but underneath the structure and quality will be worlds apart.

In summary, the vast majority of Special Constables are simply not capable, however well intentioned, of filling the role of a full time patrol officer. In my station we had one person, who was in a position financially to be able to work as a Special nearly every day, and so she was in practice a fully fledged copper. She could build a file and handle tasks that most (95% +) wouldn't have had a clue how to start.

The other problem is resourcing. With Specials being volunteers, it's extremely difficult to organise (and rely on) numbers for any given operation. With something as simple as traffic management for Remembrance Sunday, operational plans could be completely scuppered if one or two Specials did not turn up as planned. The reverse problem also exists. I had many a night where I arrived at the station and waited 2 hours to be crewed up with someone. This happened regardless of whether I gave notice that I would be in, or not. Some Specials even get fed up with being left waiting around and leave the service.

I would advise any PCC or Chief Constable that basing any sort of plans on Special Constables is indeed a soft foundation. It would be impossible to know with any certainty how many Specials you can rely on having on a given date, or what skill sets those Specials will have. I would strongly advise SMTs to plan as though you have NO Special Constables at all, then use what ever additional resources you have to bolster the full time force, to treat them as a bonus, if you will.

Finally, there is a question of exposure. If you do any sort of risk assessment, one of the things you have to consider is how often the people/person is exposed to the hazard(s). Policing is a dangerous job, of that there can be no doubt. There aren't going to be many people willing to exponentially increase their exposure to hazard whilst remaining an unpaid, undervalued and dispensible resource. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool or a member of this Government.

The creation of PCSOs was the policing equivalent of booting an open goal ten feet over the crossbar. What should have happened was the creation of some sort of more solid platform for the Special Constabulary, perhaps moving them towards a paid retainer or contract which would have made resourcing much easier.

The whole concept of Special Constables needs to be revised to match the expectations and requirements of the 21st Century.

Morality and Priorities, US Style

It's the day before the 2012 US Presidential election.

It's being billed as the tightest election since, well, the last one actually. Even more than last time, the country seems totally divided by their choice of candidate. Tempers are getting flared, strong opinions expressed. I even saw a tweet this morning saying that the author wasn't voting for Obama because "He's a stupid Mooslim communist [n-word]. Honestly being a [n-word] is enough for me." I was absolutely staggered when I read that. It would be prefectly legitimate to disagree with Obama's policies but I didn't realise that there were really people Neanderthal enough to hold views like that but still work a a computer.

Some people from the US have even told non-US tweeters to mind their own effing business with regard to the US election. I can understand this, to a point. I don't think we British would be too overjoyed about people from outside Britain trying to influence the 2015 election. The problem is, the US is not, in practice, as insular as it thinks it is. It is certainly not some tony little island which has little influence on the rest of the world. What happens in the US sends ripples, shockwaves and Tsunamis around the rest of the global population. America sets the agenda for the rest of the world in a way that virtually no other country does.

I like America very much. I enjoy being there whether it is for work or not. I get along well with the vast majority of people I meet. A couple of my closest friends are American. The mindset of America (as opposed to individual Americans) is interesting. I heard this morning on BBC Radio 4 that Obama has been criticised for not giving an unreserved endorsement of "American Exceptionalism". This is a phrase which according to some, means that the USA has a God-given destiny, a place above and beyond all other nations, superior to all. Obama has this to say about it in 2009:

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
 

My interpretation of this is that Obama believes in the best of America in the same way that Brits are passionate about Britain, which would seem to be a fairly reasonable position. From this quotation, and from my impression of his Presidency, doesn't seem to think that America is superior to other nations, morally or otherwise. Again, I think that's a sensible view and might explain why Obama is extremely popular around the world:

I'd like to think that American voters (especially supporters of Romney) would look at this data and wonder if they are looking at the issues in the correct way. Instead, I worry that some (like our cave-dwelling racist I quoted earlier) would deliberately and specifically vote the opposite way. It seems extremely odd to me that in 2012, a major political candidate can be criticised for not being arrogant enough to think America is special.

This might be a good point to mention that whilst working in America in the past 10 years, I have been asked, on two separate occasions in two different States, what language we speak in England.

Sometimes I just can't identify with the logic of some aspects of the American system. I'm from a country that's had a National Health System since 1948 although our present Prime Minister is trying his hardest to abolish it. It seems a minimum criteria for any civilised country, let alone one that preaches its version of morality, democracy and human rights around the world, to have universal healthcare. It amazes me that America, where the Constitution states that all men are created equal, has made it to the 21st Century before universal healthcare becomes available.

In fact, in briefly researching the US Constituion, I found this:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (Emphasis added)

A person from Republicans Abroad speaking on the BBC's Question Time last week said that the country couldn't afford universal healthcare due to the size of the deficit. This is the same deficit that George W. Bush created by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and going to war. He inherited a budget surplus from Bill Clinton. Would George W. Bush and his Republicans have backed universal healthcare in 2001, with or without 9/11? Of course not. I'm assuming that it's this same universal healthcare that earns Obama the perjorative tag of Communist.

Take a look at the next graph. [source]UK public debt, as a percentage of GDP, was almost 250% when the NHS was created. We still created it, and sustained it until this year. It doesn't take a great leap of logic to say that a healthier population works better, with corresponding increases in GDP. In fact, in the years following the creation of the NHS, public debt went DOWN even though the public purse was now paying for the NHS!

 

America - the country that can afford to go to war in other countries and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians, but can't afford to provide decent healthcare services for its own citizens.

Welcome to the priorities of the American Right in 2012.

Security and Cowboy Builders

Imagine that you're getting a builder in to put up an extension, or maybe a conservatory. You'd almost certainly get quotations from at least 2 or 3 different firms, and compare not just the price, but also the scope of supply for the job, i.e. what's included in the price. You might confirm some details, such as if the contractor is responsible for disposing of waste, or skip hire etc. You would probably check the builder's references, even possibly going to speak to past clients, to get an idea of the quality and reliability of the builder and his team.

When all this information is in, you make an informed choice about which builder to choose. It's probably a balance between price, quality and reliability. In terms of time, and also financially, it's usually wise to have some contingency in place.

World English Dictionary
contingency  (kənˈtɪndʒənsɪ) 

— n  , pl  -cies 
1.  a. a possible but not very likely future event or condition; eventuality 
 b. ( as modifier ): a contingency plan  
2.  something dependent on a possible future event 
3.  a fact, event, etc, incidental to or dependent on something else 
4.  in systemic grammar  
 a. Compare adding modification of the meaning of a main clause by use of a bound clause introduced by a binder such as if, when, though,  or since 
 b. ( as modifier ): a contingency clause  
5.  logic  
 a. the state of being contingent 
 b. a contingent statement 
6.  dependence on chance; uncertainty 
7.  statistics  
 a. the degree of association between theoretical and observed common frequencies of two graded or classified variables. It is measured by the chi-square test 
 b. ( as modifier ): a contingency table ; the contingency coefficient 

In the context that we've been discussing, a reasonable contingency plan might include things such as discovering that footings need to be deeper than anticipated, or perhaps an uncharted drain. Timings might, depending upon the circumstances, be changed by the weather or perhaps sickness. The broad picture from the definitions above is that the events considered in a contingency are possible, but perhaps not likely or maybe even incidental to the matter at hand.

I doubt that anyone has ever undertaken a building project with a particular supplier and included as a contingency that the work will be done so badly, that you end up having to pay someone else to do it again, (or even do it yourself) or that the builder will fail to turn up. If you even suspected that either of these situations might occur, only the most arrogant or stupid of people would continue with that contractor.

Yet, if the Government (specifically, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt) is to be believed, this is exactly what has happened. All week, Hunt has been playing down the utter and total failure of G4S to provide the required number of security guards, saying that it's completely normal for a contractor to fail to deliver, and that contingency plans were in place for this.

Hunt continues to maintain that the Government had been monitoring G4S closely during the run-up to the Games. Again, IF this is true, then it is inescapable that the monitoring was not close enough.

Hunt and Theresa May find themselves in an inextricable mess entirely of their own making. The process has been mismanaged to the extent that nothing that they save, true or otherwise, can - or should - save their jobs. Both must go after the Olympics are over.

Mr Herbert, you doth protest too much

I've recently discovered the online edition of Hansard, which shows the daily communications within the Commons and the Lords. It's recorded verbatim, which is really interesting. You get to see the whole conversation, not just the soundbites broadcast on the TV or radio news.

It's interesting because you don't have to rely on the recollections of others on who said what and to whom. To the less than transparent, however, this little fact can come back to bit you. Hard.

One such exchange caught my eye. It can be viewed here, at Column 738. I'll include the relevent section in full:

2. George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con): Whether she has considered bringing forward amendments to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill to ensure that proposed police panels are representative of the geographical area they will serve. [70926]
The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert): The Government have set out plans to ensure that police and crime panels are representative of the places they serve. We tabled an amendment to the Bill in another place, allowing many panels to co-opt further members. This will enable local authorities to address geographical imbalances.
George Eustice: I thank the Minister for that response and welcome the amendment, which is obviously a step in the right direction. However, he will be aware of the particular concerns of people in Cornwall that they might not get a fair geographic representation. What additional reassurance can he give that the Home Secretary will ensure that Cornwall is fairly represented on Devon and Cornwall police panel, and will he agree to meet a delegation from Cornwall council to discuss this issue?
Nick Herbert: I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns—they have been put to me by other hon. Friends. The amendment that we moved in the other place will allow for the nomination of an additional five members to the panel. Approval for that will lie with the Secretary of State, although there must be regard to geographical balance. I hope and believe therefore that we can reassure the people of Cornwall that they will be properly represented on these panels.
Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): The Minister will agree on what lies at the heart and success of British policing—it should be by consent, local and rooted in the community. That is why I welcome what he has just said. Will he also agree, however, that it is vital that our senior police officers have spent a year or two on the beat in the local community? Will he hit on the head these ludicrous press reports that the Government are thinking of bringing in an elite group of officers—super-duper graduates, Bullingdon club boys—to be slotted in straight away to run our police services? Policing should be local, and every chief constable should have served on the beat.
Nick Herbert: That is a travesty of the Government’s position. We have asked Tom Winsor to consider these matters. The right hon. Gentleman should pay more attention to the views of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall, which he expressed in an article in The Times today, co-written by me. He points out that the police have not made sufficient progress on diversity and that one way to address that might be to consider additional points of entry. We also point out that operational experience would be necessary.

Well well well. I've highlighted the bit I found most interesting. Mr Herbert, I think you doth protest too much.

It doesn't take much intellect to see how this Government handles objection to it's more outlandish ideas.

1. Initiallty it discredits media reports, saying that these things are being examined in an 'independent' report.
2. The report 'miraculously' recommends these exact measures, but the Government says that the outcomes of the report are in 'negotiation'.
3. Finally, the proposal becomes established fact.

It's true that the direct entry scheme proposed by Winsor is in negotiation, but we all know that police officers have no rights of real, meaningful negotiation.

I wonder, when Direct Entry becomes a fact, will someone challenge Herbert in the Commons to say that the Government has implemented something which the Minister said was a "travesty of the Government's position"? In fact, if you look closely at what was said, you'll notice that Herbert says it's a travesty, but then says "we've asked Tom Winsor to consider these matters". I wonder what else he was asked to "consider"? So much for "independent" eh, Mr Herbert?

I shall continue to look back over the Hansard records. It will be fascinating to see what other nuggets the record throws up.

Calamity May should resign

The G4S Olympics fiasco has hopefully put paid to the theory that private companies are sleek, dynamic and frugal compared to bloated, wasteful and inefficient public services.

G4S has been under close scrutiny from the Home Office. Leaked documents show that even in April, Government officials had grave doubts that G4S would be able to recruit sufficient numbers of competent staff. Against this background, it is hard to take seriously the claims of the Home Secretary that all was thought to be well until Wednesday. The Defence Secretary said today that the ‘notice to move’ given to troops was shortened at the weekend, meaning that the actual decision was taken prior to that.

Mrs May is either incompetent, or has mislead Parliament with repeated assurances that all was on plan, when her department knew that the reality was nothing of the kind. If she didn’t know, she should have done. This follows her infamous Human Rights Act cat story, the Abu Hamza farce, and she has also become the second Home Secretary in history to be convicted of Contempt of Court. In the last few weeks she has also appointed a new Chief of HMIC as a deliberate affront to the Police Federation. She has lost the confidence of the police & public alike, and should if she had any honour she would resign. She has been, head & shoulders, the most calamitous Home Secretary in living memory. She even has her own hashtag on Twitter - #NoConfidenceInTheresaMay.

It’s particularly galling for the armed forces, when in the last two weeks thousands have been told that they will be made redundant. Within a short period of time, they’re told they’re not wanted, now they’re mopping up after G4S. Had the security operation been kept within the public sector, the primary objective would have been getting the personnel trained and in place in time. The primary objective of G4S is profit. Policing functions should never be outsourced, especially never to G4S who have proven time and time again that they cannot be trusted. They have already been caught falsifying reports in order not to incur contractual penalties.

Public service is about exactly that – service. Private companies exist to make profit for their shareholders, and any service that they provide is incidental.

Banking: What Lies Beneath?

Today has really been a staggering day in the development of the Barclays scandal over LIBOR rate fixing. In the last two days, Chairman Marcus Agious, Chief Executive Bob Diamond and Chief Operating Officer Jerry del Missier have all resigned.

There have been calls for an inquiry, and the Government proposed an inquiry by the Treasury Select Committee, overseen by its Chairman, Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie. This has been rejected by Labour, who want to see a more impartial, judge-led inquiry similar to the Leveson inquiry. Such an inquiry would undoubtedly not reflect well upon Labour, and it's a credit to Ed Miliband that this is his preferred form of inquiry.

There's no doubt that the irregularities happened whilst Labour was in power, but it remains a point of discussion as to whether they occurred because of the "lack of regulation" by Labour. The Tories say so, although it would appear that at the time, they were actually campaigning for less regulation. Both Cameron and Osborne have said that they "would like nothing more than seeing Ed Balls in the dock". Ed Balls was the City Minister at the time.

So, with the gun seemingly aimed squarely at Labour, why on earth would the Government shy away from a judge-led inquiry which would undoubtedly be embarrassing (if not actually incriminating) for Labour? Could it possibly be that although there may be a gun aimed at Labour, there is a whole battery of cannons aimed at the Tories?

This is a Coalition Government that has spent the last two years blaming everything that they can think of on the previous Labour Government. Why on earth would they want to miss an opportunity for an independent inquiry to land all the blame for this at Labour's door?

Could it be that the Tories know what lies beneath?

More spin than my washing machine

Today saw the release of a report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, "Policing in Austerity: One Year On". You can read the full report here. The broad aim of the report was to measure the impact of austerity on the quality of service being delivered across the country.

In my last blog entry, I talked about how politicians use (or abuse) language to hide a multitude of sins. I spoke of how you often have to read in the gaps between the words, to see what is contained in the white space. I gave some typical examples of doublespeak used by politicians of all parties.

One example last week was when Nick Herbert MP (Policing Minister) was giving evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee regarding the appointment of Tom Winsor to the post of Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Mr Herbert referred to the police service as a "monopoly public service". This is quite a strange expression. I don't recall hearing it before in any other context. What was even more perplexing is that Mr Winsor used exactly the same phrase later when questioned by the Committee. It's an unusual phrase, used twice in the same afternoon. At this point, I'm tempted to question Winsor's much trumpeted "independence", but I won't. I'll leave that to you.

Even having written that blog, a week or so ago, I was wholly unprepared for the degree of absolutely blatant and barefaced spin and rubbish to emanate from the Twitter accounts of Nick Herbert and also even the official Twitter feed of the Home Office. Mr Herbert posted a series of messages emphasising the positive side of the HMIC report. He even went so far as to say that Labour's claims of risks to public safety and quality of service had been "demolished". Here's a summary of the report which Mr Herbert tweeted.

In interviews today, (especially with Cathy Newman on Channel 4 News) Mr Herbert was very keen on endlessly regurgitating the 'finding' that the "front line is being protected". What he conveniently neglected to say was the second half of the sentence. You can see it for yourself above. It's a particularly odd and contradictory expression, and without asking the Chief of HMIC what exactly it means, it would be hard to be certain. However, reading in the spaces, as I mentioned earlier, I've come to this conclusion, which I'll give to you as an analogy. Imagine that your house was on fire, and you were frantically trying to fight the blaze with a hose pipe. You might be making progress against that fire, you might not be. In this situation, even if the fire was "under control", it would still be burning and consuming the contents and structure of your house. In these circumstances, I think it might be fair to say that you were protecting your house, but you were not preserving it.

Thw website dictionary.com has this definition of the term "preserve":

pre·serve

   /prɪˈzɜrv/ Show Spelled [pri-zurv] Show IPA verb, pre·served, pre·serv·ing, noun

verb (used with object)

1.  to keep alive or in existence; make lasting: to preserve our liberties as free citizens.

2.  to keep safe from harm or injury; protect or spare.

3.  to keep up; maintain: to preserve historical monuments.

4.  to keep possession of; retain: to preserve one's composure.

5.  to prepare (food or any perishable substance) so as to resist decomposition or fermentation.

Using the example I've given, and the definitions above, I think we can see what HMIC really meant. Others might disagree, but my best guess of what the phrase "the frontline is being protected although not preserved" is that the 43 police forces are fighting like mad to juggle their now meagre resources, in an attempt to maintain services. However, despite their best efforts, the fire is being - at best - kept at bay whilst consuming the service relentlessly.

Mr Herbert has set much store by trotting out the line about the proportion of frontline officers increasing. This may or may not be true, depending on your classification of the term "frontline". However, what it masks - deliberately in my opinion - is the overall reduction of officers. Mr Herbert crows loudly about the proportion of frontline officers increasing from 67% to 74%. However, when tackled about the fact that a larger proportion of a smaller number means that there are fewer officers, Mr Herbert complains that the quality of service isn't measured in numbers. If this is so, why go on about the proportions? This is just a cynical attempt to show the opposite of what is really happening.

"Service to the public has been largely maintained"

Again, Mr Herbert has been talking up the maintenance of the service to the public. Let me ask you - if the roof on your house "largely kept the water out" or if your car "largely operated reliably" - would you think this is acceptable? Probably not, and yet these are fairly trivial examples. Is it acceptable that the public service is only "largely" being maintained?

The sentence highlighted above had a "but" in the HMIC report, followed by

"There are some concerns around sustainability"

This sentence actually speaks for itself. Funnily enough, I didn't hear Mr Herbert mention this one. I wonder why?