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.

10 Reasons Why Police Reform is on the wrong track

10 Reasons why the Winsor reports are wrong, from the point of view of a member of the public.

1. Winsor's report says that police officers are paid about 10-15% more than other emergency service workers. I am not in a position to say whether or not this is true, but assuming that it is, it is to compensate for the following:-
• Total lack of any employment rights. Police officers are legally prevented from striking or otherwise withdrawing labour, the ONLY sector of employment (aside from Prison Officers) so restricted.
• Restrictions on private life, including being required to be apolitical and never being off duty.
• Directed overtime, which police officers cannot refuse.
• 30 years of mostly working shifts, in dangerous and confrontational situations.
• Rest days and annual leave can be cancelled at any time.
2. The report suggests that officers who are deemed to be in the bottom 10% of the performance range are subject to dismissal, whether their performance is actually sub standard or not.
3. The execution of police duties should never be subject to targets or performance related pay, if the public are to have faith that the actions taken by officers are necessary and not simply for the achievement of targets. The oath that officers take at Attestation says that they will carry out their duties without fear or favour. Further, once you have target-led anything, let alone policing, you simply end up with more forms, more bureaucracy and less actual time focused on the activity at hand.
4. The report claims to encourage performance related pay, and yet at the same time removes Competency Related Threshold Pay (CRTP) from specialist officers such as firearms teams, whose role is especially demanding, and other officers who are able to demonstrate high levels of skill & competence. Similarly, officers who are currently Public Order (i.e. "riot") trained who receive CRTP will only do so in future if these duties are required six times per year. Imagine six separate occurrences of last summer's riots! In all practical terms, this means these officers will never receive that payment. How can that be fair? In fact, Winsor suggested scrapping CRTP in his first report, "Winsor1". This was rejected by the independent Police Arbitration Tribunal. This didn't deter Winsor. He simply repeated the proposal in his second report, "Winsor2".
5. The report made several factual errors, such as claiming that 75% of male officers in the Met were overweight. The truth is that the Metropolitan Police ran a health scheme for officers concerned about their weight. Of these officers who attended the clinic, 75% of these were indeed overweight. This is far from saying that 75% of the total officer numbers are overweight. This is either gross incompetence (reason enough to dismiss the entire report) or it's deliberately misleading.
6. Under the terms of the report, officers who are injured in the line of duty, and unable to carry out warranted (i.e. full police officer) roles or meet the fitness test standards, will have their pay reduced by 8% or £2922 (whichever is lower) and by the second year of this injury, they will be sacked. That's a great reward for an officer isn't it? Remember PC David Rathband? Under Winsor's report, he would have been sacked by now.
7. The report suggested regional pay for officers from different areas of the country, because of the different costs of living across the regions. This already exists to some extent in London. Officers serving here already receive more than officers from other areas. As a result, areas bordering London like Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire find that they are recruiting and training officers, only for them to transfer to the Met for the higher salary for doing the same job, and living in the same area. If this is implemented all over the country, this will lead to chaos. Besides, you don't hear MPs in favour of regional pay for MPs, do you?
8. Winsor proposes that candidates should be able to enter the police service at higher ranks, such as Inspector, up to and including Superintendent. What this does not appreciate, is the unique nature of policing. Using the NHS as an analogy, you could have someone "manage" a GP practice or even a hospital trust from a financial and administrative point of view, but they would not be suitable for setting healthcare policy or critiquing the work of doctors, nurses and surgeons. In fact, find someone who works in a hospital, and ask them how popular these "parachute" bosses are, and how "in touch" with the front line they are. It is possibly the worst suggestion in the entire report. Watch an episode of The Apprentice, and now imagine those same people in charge of your local police station, or even a whole policing division. That is a truly frightening thought.
9. Winsor says that he wants to make the service more "professional" and as such, wants to raise the educational requirements for entry, but at the same time reduce the starting pay for the office of Constable to less than that of a PCSO. Recently during a debate on MPs salaries, they said that it was necessary to keep the salary of an MP at the current (£65000) level "to make sure that the right calibre of people were encouraged to become MPs". How can it be right to increase MPs wages to increase professionalism, yet reduce wages to increase professionalism in the police? It seems that this suggestion is simple market economics. Each police officer vacancy is vastly over-subscribed. The logic seems to be to reduce the starting wage to discourage more people from joining.
10. Winsor says that a role which does not require the warranted powers of a constable should be paid less. What this does not account for are roles where the actual knowledge and experience of the role are absolutely crucial, such as training, control room supervisionand, perhaps to a lesser extent, call handling. Officers will not volunteer for these roles if it is going to mean a sizeable cut in pay.

There. Ten reasons, written quickly, by a member of the public. It didn't need a great deal of analysis or time to come up with these reasons why the reports should be rejected. It's simple logic and common sense.

I haven't even mentioned the cuts to officer numbers which will risk the safety of the public and officers alike. The Government will tell you that these "cuts" are necessary. Let me tell you something. This isn't about savings. It never was. How do I know? Have a look at the full speech by David Cameron on 16th January 2006. The speech can be found here. He's been itching to get his hands on the police for years. Even before 2006, in fact. Cameron was a major contributor to the Sheehy report in the early 1990s. Some of the suggestions in Winsor's reports are simply Sheehy re-heated and served on a nice plate.

Oh, by the way, Policing Minister Nick Herbert, and the Minister for Government Incompetence Theresa May, will tell you that this report by Tom Winsor was "independent". Read Cameron's speech from 2006, and decide for yourself how independent it is.

Playground or Parliament?

"I will put an end to Punch & Judy politics." - David Cameron

Do you remember that line from Mr Cameron when he became the leader of the Conservative Party? If I was a cynic, I might say that this was his first failed promise, or even the first claim as leader that he had no intention of seeing through.

In all seriousness, though, regular readers of this blog will no that I am no fan of career politicians from either side. A few moments ago I saw on the news some of the exchanges from the House of Commons today. Cameron, Miliband et al could scarcely have cut a less childish figure had they been dressed as Peter Pan & Captain Hook, complete with prosthetic hand.

The facile and boorish behaviour on the part of both sides does not serve well as an advertisement for British Politics. The backbenchers shout and jeer over the top of one another whilst the front benches, the supposedly "senior" politicians, seem to little but pull faces at each other. Never could a title have been less deserved than "the Right Honourable Gentleman".

Cameron seems to be developing a nasty little habit of belittling and attempting to humiliate female parliamentarians. In the past we've had episodes of "Calm down dear". Today when he received a question during PMQs from Shabana Mahmood, he sarcastically congratulated her on it being "well read". I say "developing", I wonder if a better word would be "revealing".

Just to prove that a real MP never misses an opportunity to score a cheap joke at the expense of their opponent, during the speech by Jeremy Hunt, Labour's Dennis Skinner stood to tell the House that "when the posh boys are in trouble, they sack the servants". A reference to the comments made earlier this week by Nadine Dorries, yes; humerous, yes, but not a single substantive political point was being made.

In other news, it turns out we are back in recession. So far, the Coalition have offloaded parts of the NHS to Virgin Care & other private companies, parts of the police service to G4S, cut frontline officer numbers, cut the numbers of teachers, cut services left, right and centre, and yet not only is there negative growth, Government borrowing is more than expected, and the deficit is growing by the second. At the risk of stating the obvious, where's the money saved by all these cuts going? The IMF?

Now, I'm not an economist. I'm not even an accountant. However sometimes I think that politicians attempting to control the economy is futile. The economy controls the politicians. They might as well try to take credit for the weather.

I'm not saying that Labour necessarily handed the crisis of 2008 well, but it is the Conservative's "Inconvenient Truth" that the financial crisis started in the US. Despite this, faced with difficult questions about going back into recession, Cameron reverted to the desperate "all Labour's fault, we inherited this mess" line. That might have worked in the first 6 months of this Government, but the Tories must think we're all thick if they think we're going to fall for that two years into this term.

The Incompetent Magician

I can't remember where I saw it, but I have an image of a magician finishing a trick, only for someone in the audience to call out exactly how the trick was done. He completed his next trick, to be met with the same result from a different audience member. This cycle went on. Eventually the red-faced magician left that stage. Embarrassed. Shambling, with the boos of the crowd ringing in his ears.

This image came to me today, as I reflected on another disastrous day at the office for Mr. Cameron and his friends. It seems at present that every day, some Minister or other makes some pronouncement that is soon, and easily, shown to be factually false or deliberately misleading.

Today was no different. It didn't start well. On BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Housing Minister Grant Shapps claimed that household rents were falling in London, and he accused the Labour-controlled council of Newham of "playing politics" by attempting to rehouse tenants in cheaper areas of the country as a result of the Government's cap on Housing Benefit. No sooner had the interview finished, it emerged - with precious little effort - that rents in London were in fact rising, and Conservative-led councils in Westminster and Kensington were running similar schemes to rehouse tenants in less expensive locations.

As if this wasn't enough, a simple search of the record shows that when the cap was first announced, London's Conservative Mayor Boris Johnson said he would "not accept any kind of Kosovo-style social cleansing of London" adding: "The last thing we want to have in our city is a situation such as Paris where the less well-off are pushed out to the suburbs."

"Playing politics", Minister? I apologise if I appear at all cynical, but it seems as though YOU might be the one playing politics. Perhaps he ought to try a few card tricks; maybe he'd be more successful at that. However, on present form I rather fancy we might spot the said card poking out from a sleeve.

The day went from bad to worse as James Murdoch arrived to give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry. It does appear to have dropped at least one more Minister in the mire. For now, we must wait to see how this particular disappearing act plays out.

"Haven't you got anything better to do?"

It's been a tough few weeks for the Government - Qatada, Charitable donations, pasties, fuel shortages etc. Now we've had the comments from Nadine Dorres about Cameron and Osbourne being "arrogant posh boys".

It's a dream for comedians, satirists and yes, opposition politicians. So many opportunities to poke fun at the Government, and I suspect we've all had a go at least once. What does concern me however, is when I see an endless stream of tweets and retweets from people like John Prescott and other Labour politicians making jokes at the expense of Cameron & Osbourne. I fully realise that the House Of Lords is an unelected body at present, but does that really mean that Lord Prescott and chums can sit back and toss it off all morning making fun of their political opponents? I've seen little else from Prescott lately; jibes, insults and demonstrations about pasties.

I'm no fan of the Tories, or indeed any other party. If the boot were on the other foot, you can be sure Cameron would be leading the hilarity.

This is why I think politics in this country in going down the pan. Ask him (or his colleagues) a serious question about politics, (or indeed, in Prescott's case, his candidacy as Humberside PCC) and you'll be met by a deafening silence. Crack a joke about the Tories or pasties, or granny tax, and you can guarantee a retweet.

Get on with it you lazy sods! Maybe the Lords should be an elected chamber after all!

That's Another Fine Mess You've Got Me Into

It really does take a spectacular brand of idiot to take something that has widespread public support, i.e. avoidance of tax by the richest people in the country, and present it in such a way that charities and other organisations, not to mention the majority of the country, are offended and outraged on a grand scale.

In the same week that millionaire George Osbourne professed to be "shocked" at how widespread tax avoidance was (despite engaging in it himself), the latest jolly wheeze from the "You Couldn't Make it Up Room" (aka Cabinet Office) was the severe restriction of charitable donations. Never mind that in the grand scale of things, this sort of dodgy donation only accounts for a very small amount of lost tax revenue. Now charities will lose out and some of the most generous people in society are branded tax-dodgers.

Well done you pair of fools. You've managed to mess up something that no one else could have imagined you'd be able to mess up.

Update 16th April 2012:

I listened with interest to a piece on this subject this morning on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The interviewee, David Gauke, Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, was saying that it wasn't right for high earners to be able to remove themselves from the tax system, or reduce their effective rate of tax below that which they should be reasonably be expected to pay.

On the face of it, this is a reasonable statement, but again shows how little consideration has been given to this proposal. Let's take an imaginary high-flyer, earning a nice round £500 000 from whatever industry they happen to be in. Let's suppose that they give £470 000 of that to charity, leaving them with £30 000 in actual income. This is what they pay tax on. Because that figure is below the higher tax thresholds, this person would pay 20% income tax on that part of their income above the personal tax allowance. This is the ConDem headline that results - "XXX pays only 20% tax on earnings of £500 000". Whilst this is strictly true, it is of course hugely (and deliberately) misleading.

If someone earns £500 000 but gives £470 000 of it to a legitimate UK charity, how much income do they really have? Why shouldn't they pay tax on the remainder of their income? What is the difference between the above example, and someone earning £30 000 and doing, say, 200 hours of voluntary work for a charity? Is the latter "avoiding tax" by choosing to spend their time working voluntarily, when it could have been spent earning taxable income? Of course not, and here lies the folly in this prepostrous scheme.

The other opinion stated by the David Gauke was that everyone has to contribute to costs of defence, education, health etc. This might give us rather more insight to the real reason for this policy. The ConDem Government is not in the least concerned about the very rich who avoid tax through loopholes, and then keep the difference. Nothing substantive has been heard about that side of the debate.

This leads me to some conclusions.

1. This is intended to ensure that Government retains control over charitable schemes, so throttling off smaller charities benefitting the poorest areas of society.
2. Since Government seems not to be bothered about what Vince Cable called "abusive tax avoidance", perhaps this has been offered as a sacrificial lamb so that they can say "we tried to stop tax avoidance but it was so unpopular we retreated from it".
3. Cameron's Big Society was never intended to be financed by the "Conservative Classes", the really rich. It was intended to be contributed to by the rest of us, earning considerably less.

David Cameron is a big, fat LIAR

The title might seem a little harsh. Indeed, it may seem unfair to single out the Prime Minister, as most leading politicians are economical with the truth. However, Cameron is supposed to be the leader of this country, and for him to be so frequently untruthful is simply not acceptable.

In this previous blog entry I discussed how Cameron had been caught rolling out a statistic that had already been exposed as false after the Home Sectretary Theresa May said it. That didn't stop him from saying it again though. In this instance, he was attempting to mislead the public about the number of frontline police officers, saying that they were increasing when in fact they are provably decreasing.

I've spoken before about how statistics are misused, or to be more exact, used to mislead and create deliberately false impressions. That blog entry is here. Cameron was at it again in a 2006 speech, about police reform. It seems that Cameron likes to lie about the police, for reasons unknown. Certainly the recent "independent" review of the police service by Tom Winsor is shown to be anything but independent when you read the 2006 speech. You can read the full text on the Guardian website.

The biggest lie in the speech was this:

"This year, each police officer, on average, will make under 10 arrests. That's not even one a month. Think about it. Yet one police constable in Nottinghamshire, PC Coetzee, arrested over 300 suspects last year." [emphasis added]

Cameron's Conservative Party appears to have some agenda against the police service. It is hell bent on selling their opinion of the service as lazy. Winsor's report told several half-truths and this whopper: that 75% of male officers in the Metropolitan Police are overweight. In fact, the inconvenient truth for Winsor was that the Met ran a scheme for officers who were concerned about their weight. Of those that joined the scheme 75% were overweight.

I suspect that Cameron's speech writer simply took the total number of arrests and divided by the number of warranted officers. Leaving aside the arguments about the term "average" in my last blog, this is misleading because not all warranted (i.e sworn) officers are in positions where they are likely to arrest offenders. For example, firearms officers (ARV teams) will often arrive first at a scene, contain it, and detain anyone who needs to be arrested until the local beat officers arrive. This is done so that the ARV can resume patrol duties rather be tied up taking statements and filling in paperwork. Similarly, there may be warranted officers who work in areas such as the training department. You might say "Why have fully qualified officers wasting their time in the training department?". I can answer that. I've worked in the training department of a police force, training new Special Constables before they went to their respective stations. It is extremely difficult to convey the application of law and best practice without having the practical experience of having done it yourself. There is also the issue of credibility before your students.

Then we have situations where five or ten officers might arrive to deal with a particular situation, such as a pub fight, and only one or two arrests get made. Does that mean that the other officers were wasting their time? Of course not. Only an idiot would suggest that. However, an idiot did.

Can a police officer's performance be measured solely by the number of arrests made? Obviously it can't. It really would take someone who didn't understand policing to say that. That'd be like saying if an officer isn't arresting people then he's not working, or that while an MP isn't earning their public salary whilst carrying out Executive Directorships on the boards of private companies. Oh, hang on, that might not be the best comparison.

Cameron's lies aren't limited to slagging off the police though. We can find him lying about the number of people in work during PMQs on January 25th, debunked here.

We can also find him lying about the benefits to taxpayers of their economic policy. That lie is put to the sword here.

Let me be clear that politicians of all parties make false claims. Labour are equally guilty. I don't support any particular party. Voting for any of them is akin to choosing the burglar that's going to ransack your house. Just remember, though, Cameron is the man who said he was going to clean up politics and stop the "Punch and Judy" exchanges in the House of Commons. Perhaps that was his first recorded lie?

Statistics Substituting for Logic

You see and hear a lot of statistics in the media. Maybe it's my nearly-middle-aged curmudgeonly nature, but it seems to me that statistics feature strongly in more news stories than ever before. No news items seems to be complete unless there's a statistic or two to underline the concept.

So what's wrong with that, you say? Statistics would appear to be an unbiased, objective analysis of data relating to the subject at hand. We've been brought up to trust statistics.

It's my view that too often, statistics are used as a substitute for a persuasive, well constructed argument. How can that be?

Firstly, the reader has to remember that the writer of the article has selected the statistics that they're giving you, specifically to support the main thrust of their argument. The author, unless it's an academic journal, probably did not include contrary statistics to lend balance, to let you make up your own mind. This does not mean that such adverse evidence does not exist! The source of the statistics is crucial. Are the statistics provided by, or funded by, someone with a vested interest? Is the data even statistically significant? My favourite example of this is advertisements of cosmetics or hair products. Next time you see one of those, along with the strapline of "87% of women agreed that it worked for them", look for the small print that says how many people it was tested on. More often than not you will find that the number of testers was under say, 200. It really beggars belief, doesn't it? Huge, multinational cosmetics companies with advertising budgets of millions, can only find a couple of hundred people, at most, to test their 'fabulous' new product one. Suddenly, when you consider that 87% of 78 people "agreed" or reviewed positively, it doesn't seem such a convincing figure, does it?

Next, it's crucial to read between the lines of the data that's presented, to try to see what the author didn't want you to see or think. Of course, it's often difficult and time consuming to do your own research on any given subject, but a good rule of thumb is that for every statistic pointing in one direction, there's often another statistic pointing equally strongly in the opposite direction.

However, my biggest bugbear is the use (or misuse) of the term "average". Think for a moment about what the word "average" means to you? One of the definitions offered by dictionary.com is "a typical amount, the norm". I'd suggest that what occurs to most of us when we see that term used. How accurate is that perception though?

Consider this graph:

Figure 1: Normal Distribution curve

This is what's called a "normal distribution" graph. It is typical, for example, of exam results, where most results are in the middle of the range, resulting in the peak you see in this graph, with fewer results at either end of the spectrum. You might hear it referred to as a "Bell curve", so named for its shape.

You'll also notice that there are three terms on the graph; mode, median and mean. I'll attempt to explain each of them briefly.

• Mean - this is what we typically think of as "average". You add all the results together, and divide by the number of samples.
• Mode - this is the result which occurs most frequently. If you are looking at exam results, then the Mode is the result which most students achieved. This will always be the peak of the graph, as there are more samples at that size (result) than any other.
• Median - this literally means 'middle'. If you arranged all of the samples (or results) in numerical order, the median is the middle value. For example, the 50th result out of 100, or the 10th result out of 20.

So what? By now you think I'm being overly technical and pedantic, don't you? You can see from the graph above that mean, mode and median are all roughly the same, right? What does it matter if someone refers to "average", or "mean" or "median". It makes no difference, surely? Sometimes it doesn't. Figure 1 is an example of an instance where there may not be much difference.

OK, now look at this graph, Figure 2.

Figure 2: Skewed distribution

Figure 2 shows a markedly different distribution of results. It's obviously skewed to one side, towards the lower end of the results scale. You can clearly see that in this case, mode, mean and median are all going to be drastically different numbers. Now the distinction in the term "average" is really important.

Consider the wage structure of a typical company or organisation. Which graph do you think most closely resembles the wage structure - Figure 1 or Figure 2? Obviously, there will be a bigger concentration of incomes at the lower end of the scale, where the number of people earning the big bucks decreases the higher up the organisation you go. This explains why the mode is the lowest figure, as it's the most common. The median wage will tend to be bang in the middle of the scale, and the mean will often be distorted by the small number of higher incomes at the top of the scale. Which term more closely reflects the wage people are likely to receive working in that organisation?

Now, the next time some politician (the dictionary definition of a person with an agenda or vested interest) tells you that the "average" wage in a given industry (that they happen to be in the process of reforming) is X, think for a moment. Listen carefully to the language used. Did they say "average"? Or did they say something else?

Earlier this week, I read a mostly misleading report written by Edward Boyd, a member of the think tank Policy Exchange defending the scandalous war being waged on police wages. The report claims that 40% of officers will be better off under the new proposals, yet at the same time attempted to portray police wages as unreasonably high by stating that the median police gross wage was £40 402 per year.

Notice the language. The median gross wage was £40 402. This figure includes overtime, which police officers are obliged and required to work if so directed. Overtime that last year would have included policing the riots that spread across the country. Being the median, this also means that it was in the middle of the scale, with no regard to how many officers actually earned that. Think back to Figure 2. If the gross median is £40k, what is the realistic wage earned by most officers? Is it £40k, or is it less than that?

Let's use another analogy. If someone said to you that the average wage for someone working in the banking industry was, say, £50 000, would you assume that this is what the clerk at your local branch is earning? Of course not. That would be a ridiculous assumption; clearly the figure is bolstered by the much higher wages earned in other areas of the industry.

There is one other possibility. The author of this particular report did not understand the term 'median' and misused it. If this is the case, then the report ought to be dismissed out of hand, for its author hasn't sufficient knowledge to write with authority about the subject in hand.

So the next time someone tries to persuade you of their argument by throwing statistics at you, the chances are that the numbers are hiding large holes in the actual logic of their case.

Think carefully. Think critically. Yesterday (29th March), Sky News announced that the surge in petrol buying (caused by the potential for a strike by tanker drivers) had led to an "extra £32m in fuel duty for the Government". Cue lots of outraged people claiming that this was convenient for a Government about to enter another recession. I'm no fan of Goverments, of any colour. On the other hand, let's give this some thought. It's said that petrol & diesel sales went up above normal by more than 80%, and this is where this figure of £32m has come from. Where is this huge extra volume of fuel going? It's going into the fuel tanks of the nation's car, van and truck drivers. Some people, if they've had a total lobotomy, will be storing it in their garages. When this strike issue has blown over, they'll eventually pour this stored fuel into their vehicles.

My point here is that the actual consumption and usage of fuel will remain the same. If anything, it might actually reduce as people drive less, to conserve precious fuel. So - this figure of £32m. Is it "extra" income as was claimed by the media? Or is it simply £32m of fuel duty income that's come in during March that would have come in April had this situation not occurred. I suppose in April, after the double-dip recession has been confirmed, the same media will be claiming that fuel buying had "suddenly plunged" as a result of the recession, when actually it's because the fuel was bought this month rather than next month.

Caveat emptor.

The Death of the Police Service

The UK Police service, as we have known it since the 1800s, is dying. The process began with the administering of a lethal injection yesterday, with the announcement of the second part of Tom Winsor's recommendations into police pay and conditions. Some of you reading this will be old enough to remember the time, around 1987 or 1988, when then-Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke referred to paramedics in ambulances as "professional drivers". This moment, is right up there alongside Clarke in terms of bare faced cheek and outright ignorance. Is it no coincidence that Clarke is now the Justice Secretary?

Much of the media attention is, regrettably, currently focused on the issue of fitness tests and the BMI of police officers. I agree with the basic proposal that where possible, fitness should be assessed and maintained regularly. At present, there is a basic fitness test on application and it's never looked at again. However, there's a lot more to this issue that simply "fat coppers eating doughnuts". The sheer practical facts of a life spent working shift patterns, with the constant pressure to be publicly visible, means that a large number of officers will be eating from convenience stores, petrol stations, and kebab or burger vans. It's a proven fact that long-term shift work increases the likelihood of serious ailments.

In addition, there will be some officers who wish to continue working even after sustaining an injury in the line of duty. What about them? I can only imagine what would have happened to PC David Rathband if these proposals had been implemented during his working life. Presumably, he would have been sacked before the sound of gunfire had died away. In fact, its March 2012, so we are fast approaching the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic. The crew of the Titanic, whether they died or not, had their wages stopped as soon as the ship sank. You really would think, 100 years later, that we were past that sort of thinking. Apparently, Tom Winsor isn't.

These issues are indeed serious, and merit examination in the press. The problem is that the mainstream media are fixated on it, and this is allowing Winsor and the Government to perpetrate a distraction burglary on the Police service. Whilst all the discussion about fitness takes place at the front door, the other more insidious proposals are sneaking in the back and making off with the TV.

Let's not forget that this stupid, naive, dishonest and disingenuous report also suggests direct entry to the rank of Inspector or even, God forbid, Superintendent. Police officers in supervisory ranks absolutely must have the bedrock of experience that starting as a probationary PC, and working your way through the system gives. It is the only way of gaining the necessary skills and knowledge of the tasks required. Cognitive knowledge is not sufficient. Otherwise, medical students would be able to qualify from University as surgeons.

Winsor complains that vacancies are currently too "over-subscribed" (meaning too many people apply) so his insightful solution is to reduce the starting wage for constables to a lower level than PCSOs. Yet at the same time, Winsor says that he wants the police service to attract "the brightest and the best". Really? Recently, within the last year or two, MPs said that the wages for an MP had to be set at £64k so as "to make sure we attract the right calibre of people into politics". Confused? Yes, me too.

You might wonder what my part in all of this is. I served in the Special Constabulary from 1998-2006, so I have a reasonable idea what goes on within the police service, yet I've also had a career in engineering which is now entering its 21st year. I like to think that my own viewpoint is a good one; I have the insights to know what the job is like, without being "institutionalised" into the current police way of life where sometimes people feel that the current way is the only way. I've had a life and career outside of the police too, making me arguably a more rounded person. I feel perfectly placed to see the sheer undiluted folly in Winsor's report.

Yet, despite my experience and qualifications, I would not be eligible for entry in Winsor's police service. I don't have any A levels, and Winsor says I ought to have three of them. Unfortunately for me, from school I did semi-vocational qualifications of National Diploma and Higher National Diploma.

I'm no longer actively involved in the police service, but I still feel very affectionately towards it. At the moment, I feel as though I'm watching the vet put down a favourite pet.

Peter, Dilbert and Institutional Incompetence

You've probably never heard of Dr. Laurence J. Peter, but his work goes a long way to explaining why almost every large organisation, including Governments, are totally useless and operate in spite of their upper management and "leaders".

I've been in and out of various hospitals over the last five or six years because of issues with my wife's health, in different areas and different counties, and they're all useless. Don't get me wrong - the people at the front line, so to speak, are nearly always brilliant. Polite, capable and willing, and really well qualified. The problem is the systems that they work in are not fit for purpose. On several occasions, we have arrived for appointments to discuss the results of the latest scan, only to find that the consultant doesn't have the images. If we're lucky, they'll have a written report of the scan, describing the results - but no actual image. A couple of months ago, we saw an endocrinologist who said he would like my wife to have an ultrasound scan, and then a visit to his clinic to discuss the scan.

A few weeks later, we received the two appointments through the post. The appointment for the specialist had been made before the scan. My wife realised that this was not right, so she rang the office and got the appointments rearranged. She had the scan, and we turned up for the consultant's appointment. The scan results had not been sent to the consultant's office. Nursing staff had to spend precious time phoning around and arranging for the results to be sent. We got there in the end, but not by design. We had a similar experience when my wife had an MRI. We arrived to see the neurologist only to find that no images had been sent. Again, some frantic searching bore fruit and we eventually had the images that we needed.

Virtually every other company has stories or experiences like this. The staff at the lowest levels in the organisation are busting a gut to do a useful day's work in the face of incompetence and ignorance in the levels above them. One explanation for this was provided by Dr Peter in 1969. It became known as "The Peter Principle".

This explanation holds that when someone is good (competent) at the job that they do, they get promoted to the next level up. If they do well there, they get promoted again. Eventually, they get to a position where their performance at that level does not warrant further promotion. Thus they are no longer competent. This is the general thrust of the Peter Principle - that people get promoted to the level of their incompetence. My own experience bears this out. In nearly every company I've worked for (some more than others!) most of the management positions are filled with people who are incompetent at management, leadership or both.

There is a variation on this hypothesis - "The Dilbert Principle". This was created by the author Scott Adams. His version is that people who are incompetent are promoted further up the organisation where they can do less damage. Adams' character Dogbert explained it as "nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow". I am personally aware of one such example, in a previous company, of someone who was so useless at the task at hand, that he was transferred to management where he could do less damage.

If either of these points are even half true - then most of the people in any given management position are there either because they aren't good enough to be promoted further, or they've been promoted to their current position to get them out of the way of the productive people. Not inspiring, is it?

The other reason that most large companies are institutionally useless, is that the people making decisions and policy are so far removed from reality, by which I mean the reality of what's actually happening, that they couldn't possibly do an effective job. If you've ever had the misfortune of being on one of those cringeworthy team building courses where someone has to drive a car blindfolded whilst being verbally directed by a colleague, you'll know exactly what I mean. The senior managers are so distant that by the time their latest policy is implemented, the circumstances that lead to it in the first place have shifted, and it's no longer relevant.

This is why politics is almost always a totally futile exercise from the public's point of view. It genuinely doesn't make any difference who you vote for. For a start, most politicians know next to nothing about the business of their area of responsibility. Some of them (I'm tempted to say most of them) have never done a real day's work in their lives and so can't relate to us to begin with. If, as happens rarely, you get a politician who for some inexplicable reason, does know something about their area of responsibility, all of the above applies; they're so far from the shop floor that they can't effectively manage any situation.

As I said earlier, some organisations work despite their political leads and senior management. The NHS and the Police are perfect examples. A lot of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) have not been on patrol for so long that I'd be surprised if they could even remember the caution. The nature of policing has changed so much in that time, they wouldn't have a clue if they were forced to go on active duty again. It used to be the same in the military - the reasons that so many lives were lost in the First World War was that the generals were implementing strategies from their previous war experience, which were no longer effective and were actually counter productive.

The unfortunate thing for a lot of the public services is that all of these things overlap disastrously - managed by people with decades of experience, and little of it relevant, and led by politicians who know nothing about that service anyway. The current debacle over the cuts to the NHS and Police services illustrates this perfectly. The Government of the day thinks it knows all about these services, being given information and assurances by upper structures which are twenty years out of date. The result is the complete and utter shambles that we find ourselves in.

As I write this, it's Sunday evening. That means tomorrow is Monday morning. Enjoy your week at work everyone.

The Systematic De-skilling of the Police

The current coalition Government is receiving a lot of criticism at the moment for cuts and proposed changes to the Police service in the UK. Sitting Governments always get the most stick but, as with a lot of things, there is a bigger picture to this. In an earlier blog I described how my own politics have evolved as I've got older. I no longer believe that any of the political parties hold the keys to Utopia; they're all as flawed as each other. The truth is, that the political system is slowly but surely de-skilling the Police service, and it's been happening for some time.

I'm sure there are readers out there older and more experienced than me that remember other examples. The first one I'm aware of was the role of Scenes of Crime Officer (SOCO). This was gradually removed from police officers and non-sworn police employees took on these tasks.

My own personal involvement with the Police service began with my attestation as a Special Constable in October 1998. The Special Constabulary is (or was) an important resource for most Constabularies. In case you are not familiar with the Special Constabulary, they are unpaid volunteers who are fully sworn and attested Police officers, with the same powers of arrest and by and large the same equipment. In most forces, the only way of distinguishing between a Special Constable and a PC is a small 'SC' insignia on the epaulettes, and sometimes a different cap badge.

Specials come from all parts of the community, and I would imagine that most of them volunteer for duties at evenings and weekends. This works well, as it allows forces to bolster their numbers at peak times such as Friday and Saturday nights, and for other special events such as Remembrance Sunday or concerts etc requiring additional police presence. The Police are thus able to meet peaks in demand without a large increase in overtime or without diverting officers away from routine and response duties. It's no exaggeration to say that some communities would not be patrolled regularly if it were not for volunteer Special Constables.

Specials receive out-of-pocket expenses for travelling and subsistence, but no payment. We as a group had long campaigned to be put of retainers in the same way that the Territorial Army (TA) and Retained Firefighters are. The Treasury refused to do this, claiming that it would be too expensive.

In the early part of the 2000s, the Labour Government took the decision to introduce Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs). These are uniformed Police employees who undertake certain routine duties for the police such as statement taking, but do NOT have powers of arrest (other than Common Law "civilian arrest" powers that everyone has). However, and this is crucial, PCSOs also patrol areas. Sometimes with fully sworn Police Officers, but sometimes alone. PCSOs do an important job, but when it comes to patrol, it's basically Neighbourhood Watch with a police uniform and radio. They often don't carry handcuffs or other protective equipment. This was the cynical part of the process that ultimately lead to my departure from the Special Constabulary. The introduction of PCSOs to patrol duties was nothing but a trick, an illusion, to fool the general public into thinking that there were more uniformed police officers on duty that there really were.

The creation of the position of PCSOs must have cost the Home Office millions of pounds. I'd be interested to hear from anyone that has the exact figure. The legislation had to be drafted, training designed and delivered, not to mention the recruitment process. This money could have been spent properly rewarding existing an new Specials - for which there was no need to create additional legislation, training or administration. The basic premise of PCSOs might have been sound, but somewhere along the line, someone in the Home Office took the opportunity to trick the public and start the mass de-skilling of police duties. The thin end of the wedge was truly in progress.

So it comes as no surprise now that the latest wheeze out of such pinnacles of logical thinking as the Home Office, ACPO and Policy Exchange that we are now staring down the barrel of private patrol services. The fact that it's no surprise doesn't make it any less frightening though. We only have to look at most examples of Government procuring and outsourcing (not to mention privatisation of national services) to say that it's a racing certainty that it'll end in disaster. There's too many examples to mention. Railways, water and energy utilities, buses..... I could go on but I won't.

So what's behind it all? The most likely explanation (apart from some weird class thing going on) is cost. It costs a lot to employ a police officer. This is no surprise because most are vastly skilled and experienced at what they do. It's a difficult and stressful job. However, the likes of Blair Gibbs and Theresa May either don't understand this or don't want to. Their agenda is to dumb down the police service as much as possible to drive cost out of it, to lower the expectations of the public as to what they can expect from a police service, and reduce the skill sets "required". They are being aided and abetted in this by unscrupulous and dishonest elements of the media who are only too happy to get their revenge on the police who've recently dropped them right in it.

Would any of this be happening if Labour was in power? Probably, but maybe with certain subtle differences in execution. They wouldn't have the overall support of the press, that's for sure. But in the end, it makes no difference. Because Governments of all colours have been engaged in the systematic de-skilling of the police service for decades.

Is there such a thing as a politician we can trust?

"If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth."

- Joseph Goebbels

It's times like yesterday that I seriously think I'll never vote again.

In the last few days, there has been a lot of comment about remarks made by the Prime Minister David Cameron during Prime Ministers Questions on February 22nd. You can read the analysis by Channel 4 news here. I won't go into the full analysis of the stats as C4 have done an excellent job.

Basically, what Cameron said was that there would be more visible Police this March than a year ago.

Theresa May said much the same thing about a month or so ago, and was widely criticised and ridiculed for saying this. A larger proportion, yes, but of a smaller number. Result: net decrease in "visible" police.

And here's what really gets my goat about this;

1. Was this a simple statistical mistake? No, it can't have been. One might have been able to be generous the first time, but the Government would have known that it was an unsustainable and indefensible statistic following Theresa May's use of it. Mistakes are made of course, but they should be rectified, not trotted out repeatedly.

2. Did the PM not really understand the issue? I sincerely hope that's not the case. If he did not understand the significance of what he was saying then he is not fit to be PM.

3. Did Mr Cameron simply regurgitate what he was told to say, without checking the veracity of the claim? See my answer to 2). You'd think he'd have learnt his lessons from the "45 minutes" saga.

4. Does the Government really think that we are stupid enough to unquestioningly fall for these bland statements? Probably. This is the only explanation that I can think of. They surely can't be saying these things with an "honestly held belief" that it's even partially true.

The only conclusion that I can come to is that HM Government think that the soundbite of "more visible police" is what will get the attention and that people won't read the small print. What's even more depressing, politically, is that I think all of the parties would have done the same thing. We've had 13 years of Spin from New Labour where such statistical deception was commonplace. Previous Governments have of course done the same but somehow now it seems more blatant and endemic.

It's very simple sub-GCSE maths to analyse this topic, and Mr Cameron and his aides seem incapable of this.

Is there such a thing as a politician we can trust?

Update 16th April 2012:

Turns out Mrs May has "form" for distorting the truth and misrepresentation for her own ends. Remember the "cat" story? Mrs May, during a speech to the Conservative Party Conference, claimed that an illegal immigrant was not deported because he had a cat. The Daily Mail reported the story here.

The slightly more rational view of events can be found on Channel 4's FactCheck blog.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Now, just to show I'm not entirely biased against the Conservative Party, let's subject Ed Miliband to the same scrutiny. On April 2nd, he said

“According to the British Crime Survey, violence, theft and robbery are going up – the fastest rise in a decade”



Really? The funny thing is, I seem to recall the Opposition making similar claims when Labour were in power, but the Labour Government dismissing these claims as scaremongering.

Once again, let's leave FactCheck to do the analysis. Read it here.