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.