So what is UKIP's policy on Police & Crime governance?

The bubbling news over the weekend, as the Conservative Party sat down to pray in Birmingham, is that Mark Reckless has done a Daniel Carswell... and joined UKIP. Following the Clacton by election where polls are suggesting that Mr Carswell will be elected as the town's UKIP MP, there will now be a by election in Rochester & Strood as well. It is too early to say whether Mr Reckless (a notable member of the Home Affairs Select Committee) is likely to be elected or not. I would imagine that the Conservative Party will be throwing quite a few kitchen sinks at both constituencies in forthcoming days and weeks.

Now, it is most interesting, as far as this blog is concerned, that both of these men are architects of the Police & Crime Commissioner based governance system. The other main people (culprits?) are Dan Hannan MEP and Nick Herbert MP. (I imagine the whips will be seeking them out in coming days too.)

So this got me wondering what the UKIP party's policy is on police & crime governance. It is difficult to 'nail down' UKIP policy when it seems so changeable of course. (What happened to the 'wag tax' as it was dubbed on Friday?)

So I went first to the official UKIP website. Given that they have just had their conference, I expected this to be a good source of guidance. They appear to have 'issues' rather than 'policies'. They have one section entitled: Safeguard Against Crime, which has the following 'issues':

• No cuts to front line policing.
• Make sentences mean what they say.
• No votes for prisoners - that’s what losing your liberty means.
• Prevent foreign criminals entering the UK - by re-introducing border controls that the EU forced us to abandon.
• Scrap the European Arrest Warrant, which sends British citizens to foreign jails without evidence, just to answer questions - replace it with a proper extradition system.
• Remove the UK from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. 

Naturally, anything with a 'European' tag is anathema to UKIP which accounts for 3 of these 6 'issues'. Arguably, since it was a ECHR decision, the third issue is also part of the European thing. Which just leaves us with the first two: no cuts to frontline policing. I think we can dismiss this as mere motherhood & apple pie since all political parties will say no cuts to the frontline (even though that is, of course, what happens when you reduce budgets as fast as they have been in recent years...)

And so we are left with making sentences mean what they say. I have never read a full custodial sentence delivered by a judge but I would hazard a guess they contain all the words necessary to either state explicitly or implicitly clearly reference the precise legal implications of the sentence. In other words, they already mean what they say. So frankly I have no idea what this 'issue' statement means other than to trigger (without actually saying such) thoughts as 'life should mean life' etc. Indeed this is typical of UKIP statements, they often hint rather than state what they mean on the basis that keeping things vague leaves them plenty of room for manoeuvre.

So, in terms of policy on policing, there isn't much. So I thought I would check out the latest UKIP candidate for the forthcoming PCC by election in South Yorkshire. He has been named as UKIP councillor Jack Clarkson. He is a former Lib Dem councillor and was a police officer from 1976 to 2006. He is now on record for saying "Only UKIP can guarantee that political correctness will not get in the way of investigating crimes and only UKIP can promise one law for all".

Hmm.

So exactly how will this guarantee and promise work? I hope someone asks him this at a hustings sometime soon. 

He also states that it is his "commitment to the people of South Yorkshire that [he] will give them back a police force they can trust, a force that has a more visible presence, with more boots on the ground and more community policing that will safeguard our communities". All stirring stuff and a plan which deserves to be scrutinised for its practicality within the current levels of funding. From where will these 'more boots' come from?

It will be interesting to see what background is dug out about Jack Clarkson and to hear more of his plans and policies. Will he receive the campaign support of the two Conservative architects of the post for which he is seeking election, I wonder?

But meanwhile some more background on him (from LinkedIn):

• Jack retired from SYP at the rank of Inspector after completing 30 Year’s service.
• Soon thereafter he became the Rotherham Branch manager for 'Victim Support' assisting and caring for victims of crime. 
• Jack's area of of expertise surrounds community cohesion, engagement and safety.
• Jack is now self employed working for companies and private individuals relating to confidential and sensitive security issues (listed in part as: May 2011 to Present - Bespoke investigations on behalf of clients - Business and Private, ranging from Professional witness service to tracing and tracking.)

He also features in a UFO type incident on Howden Moor in March 1997. It would seem he was involved in policing at least part of Rotherham beyond his sojourn in the 80s during the miners' strike.

On January the 10th 2013 Jack Clarkson decided that he would represent the UK Independence party as Town Councillor for Stocksbridge, (as announced by UKIP). This timing is somewhat intriguing as he had been already announced as running mate to the UKIP candidate for the original PCC elections in November 2012. He stood as Lib Dem in May 2012 Sheffield City Council elections. He stood and won as a UKIP candidate in May 2014.

I watch this space and look forward to understanding more about UKIP's approach to policing and its governance...

Intriguing timing

The Daily Telegraph reported yesterday that PCC Anthony Stansfeld (Thames Valley) has declared that 400 police officers will have to be cut in order to balance the books and meet the falling contributions from the Treasury. The article goes on to say:

“There will be across-the-board cuts on most, if not all, types of policing.” Mr Stansfeld said the prospect of losing so many officers meant it might not be possible to “keep a lid on” crime in larger towns in his area, including Slough and Reading.

The timing of this is intriguing. Perhaps it is a shot across the bow of the government and a way for Mr Stansfeld to assert the importance and indeed independence of PCCs. In a week where the Labour Party conference is underway and Yvette Cooper has announced that a future Labour government will axe PCCs, I am left wondering just who Mr Stansfeld hopes will hear his words?

Thames Valley of course polices both constituencies of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary... It is curious though that only in July was the Chief Constable reported as saying that "she needed to cut 77 officer jobs by March, as part of £38m budget cuts over the next three years".

I will be watching this space...

UPDATE 1711 | 230914: After some space watching and a helpful tweet from @MartinPetchey, the MK Citizen has published this story "Police job cuts: Chief constable denies claims". Huh? So what exactly is going on? There appears to be a significant difference of opinion between the Chief Constable and the PCC... Perhaps they would like to explain further?

PCC: irony (ˈʌɪrəni/)

Regular readers will know that I have referred to Anthony Stansfeld (PCC for Thames Valley) as the gift that keeps on giving. He has not said much of late but the Oxford Mail published an interview with him last Saturday. You can read it all here.

Here are some gems:

Mr Stansfeld said a fall in crime proved PCCs had been a success, but said media coverage often painted them in a bad light. He said: “The vast majority have been a considerable success.”

Yes, you read that correctly: the fall in crime proved PCCs had been a success...! Now to be fair to Mr Stansfeld, the news story does not contain a direct quote on this and perhaps the journalist will need to say exactly what Mr Stansfeld claimed but... it does not look good!

He also asserts, this time with a direct quote given, that the vast majority have been a success without providing any evidence to back up that claim. On what basis have they been a success? As readers know, I believe there have been some successes and I praise the PCCs who are making a difference but "vast majority"... hmm.

He also goes onto say

“What I find ironic is that the profile of PCCs is only raised when something goes wrong.”

Here is a web definition of 'irony':

- the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.("‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony")- a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result. ("the irony is that I thought he could help me"- a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

As it happens I think that it is tragically perhaps but clearly inevitable and often wryly amusing that the profile of PCCs is only raised when something goes wrong... And PCCs are probably an example of latter day Greek tragedy in that many of them (and I can think of one or two...) do not know the full significance of their actions and words even though it is bloomin' obvious to the rest of us!

In this sense, Mr Stansfeld is on the money: PCCs are the epitome of irony, perhaps even quintessentially so...

Child Sexual Exploitation: what parents can do...

I will say more later on, but I wanted to get this information out as soon as possible. I have been pointed towards what seems to be an excellent publication produced by PACE (Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation) which seeks to offer advice to parents in these circumstances:

Working with the Police: The role of parents in investigating child sexual exploitation

I have not read it in detail but it seeks to offer some helpful ways forward whereby concerned parents (and 'concerned' is probably an understatement!) can assist in the bringing to justice the adults involved in exploiting their children.

For your information: Who are Pace?

Parents Against Child Sexual Exploitation (Pace) works alongside parents and carers of children who are sexually exploited, or are at risk of being sexually exploited, by perpetrators external to the family. At our heart is a network of affected parents, whose expertise is central to our mission. Individual parents’ experiences are referred to throughout the booklet in distinctive handwritten type. You can read more about Pace and how we can help on pages 48–49

I will write more about this subject in later blogs. But for the time being...

Good bye Amazon

We all know about the financial finagling that allows Amazon to trade in the UK but somehow means it eludes paying its fair share of tax. For a long while, I stopped buying from its website. But then I drifted back: after all it is so easy and are other suppliers any more ethical in their tax affairs? (You see I can justify anything...)

Well, now I have had my fill. And it has nothing to do with tax. But it has everything to do with honesty. For this reason (and please hold me to this), I will no longer be spending any more money with Amazon.

What happened? I ordered two DVDs for myself the other day (Sunshine on Leith and One Chance) and they were delivered yesterday, through my letterbox at 3.37pm says the tracking website. Except the package was not delivered and despite two long chats with Amazon staff, the driver/deliverer 'cannot' be located to say where they actually did deliver the package.

All that Amazon want to do, is send me another package. I told them that this would a) not restore my trust in them b) not resolve the issue in the long term. In other words it is a cost of failure that ultimately I will be paying for. Moreover, in effect, it rewards the lying by the delivery company that a package was delivered through my door when it was not. Amazon have told me that their transport department will have a conversation with the contractor but they cannot send me a copy of the report of actions arising from that meeting. Note they said 'cannot'. I corrected their grammar and said it should be 'will not'.

So goodbye Amazon. I am off elsewhere to spend my money on DVDs and the like. You have shown yourselves up to be an inefficient, opaque and dishonesty rewarding company that I can no longer have confidence in.

UPDATE: 110914 | 0806:

Last night I received a comment from an anonymous source who said: How does that reward the dishonesty of the delivery company? I imagine enough bad reports againest the particular driver/company and Amazon will stop using them.

In answer I would say because all that Amazon seemed to want to do was send me another package rather than tackle the issue and resolve it. This rewards failure and as is evident from the link below, I am not the only one who thinks that 'Amazon Logistics' lie about what they have done. The forum thread linked below, started in May. Amazon have had nearly 4 months to react to and deal with these mounting criticisms of their contractor...

It seems I am not alone in my criticism of 'Amazon Logistics'. You can read an extensive forum discussion of similar problems to the above. I have just added my contribution:

Good to know I am not the only one. Have just written this email to their CEO (thanks for the address Y.A.Chang)
________________

Dear Mr North
I understand you are the CEO of Amazon.
See below transcript as to why I will never do business with you again. Essentially you have hired inaccessible, unreliable and mendacious contractors to deliver the articles that customers order. Your processes are opaque and without accountability. Your customer service operators say `cannot' when they actually mean `will not'. In sum: I no longer have confidence or trust in your business.
Goodbye

UPDATE: 150914 | 1443:

Just received this reply back from Mr North's office:

Dear Mr Harvey,
My name is Brian Motherway and I work within Amazon.co.uk Executive Customer Relations.
I am contacting you on behalf of the office of the Amazon.co.uk Ltd Managing Director, Mr Christopher North. After reviewing your correspondence, Mr North has requested that I respond to your e-mail.
Rest assured however, Christopher takes e-mails like yours very seriously and is aware of the issue and our response both to you as well as internally to the various relevant departments.
Firstly, please accept my sincere apologies for the unfortunate issues you have experienced with the delivery of your order. I am sorry to hear of the poor service that you have received from us and in particular, the delivery service from Amazon Logistics. Thank you for taking the time to inform us of this matter. 
Please know that it is very important to us that our customers receive their orders as expected and we understand the disappointment and inconvenience caused by these events.
I can assure you that I have informed senior management in our Transportation Department of your experience. This matter will in turn be highlighted to senior management in Amazon Logistics to ensure that this is fully investigated. We truly value this kind of feedback, as it helps us continue to improve our website and provide a better service to our customers. Your correspondence will be used in reviewing the service provided by Amazon Logistics.
Thank you for taking the time to write to us and for bringing this to our attention. We hope that you will allow us an opportunity to serve you in the future.

Regards,
Brian Motherway
Executive Customer Relations

... which is a start. Meanwhile I have discovered Rakuten | Play.com which appears to offer a comparable service (time will tell...). Also Oxfam online also have a fair few DVDs (etc.) for sale & despatch. 

PCC governance: the writing is on the wall in Rotherham and elsewhere

Anyone who watched the Home Affairs Select Committee (HASC) grilling (this link may or may not work as a recorded session) of PCC Shaun Wright cannot fail to have been impressed on at least two counts: Mr Wright has redefined 'brazen defiance' to a new level & there is no legislative route by which anyone can (currently, without new primary legislation being enacted) remove him from office until 2016.

When PCC governance is reformed, as it surely will be, Mr Wright's case study will be cited on many occasions.

And then this morning, I got engaged in a short twitter debate with the PCC for Staffordshire, Matthew Ellis. It began with me gently nudging him about this story where he is reported to have stated that "Two-thirds of police and crime commissioners are hopeless". I told him I thought the accepted figure was only a third!

But here are the last few posts in our dialogue (mixed threads so a couple of posts missing):

• ‏@CllrJonSHarvey: @MatthewEllis I thought "accepted" fraction was 1/3, but no worries. I think difference is PCC's who think themselves managers not leaders
• ‏@MatthewEllis @CllrJonSHarvey Agree! Get balance right aim for added value & instill new anbition & thinking seems to work. Public engagement up up up!
• ‏‏@MatthewEllis: @CllrJonSHarvey Subjective isn't it. Depends where bar lies. Perhaps between the two! Point is role can work. We've had bad PMs Cllrs MPs?
• @CllrJonSHarvey: @MatthewEllis And PMs, cllrs & MPs are all herd beasts. PCCs are more or less isolated given their singular power. Different category
• ‏@MatthewEllis: @CllrJonSHarvey Fair point. I support some form of recall or reserve Home Sec powers to remove exceptionally. Agree greater check n balance
• ‏@CllrJonSHarvey: @MatthewEllis specifics? What extra check & balance powers would you give to PCP?
• @MatthewEllis: @CllrJonSHarvey Firstly more resource & much higher public profile. Parl Select committees more powerful since profiles raised & enhanced

So this blog is my response to his last tweet, as simply 140 characters are not enough!

It is my impression that Mr Ellis is one of the better PCCs. I happen to think that he has grasped and understood that his role is primarily one of leadership rather than (micro) management of the Chief Constable (as some PCCs seem to be doing) and/or glad-handing lots of people at shows and festivals.

Nonetheless, as I said to him in another tweet, if it takes a superlative person to make a role work, that is not a good and solid basis for that governance role. And given the vagaries of how candidates are selected and elected (and Mr Wright at least had the grace to admit in his time with the HASC yesterday, that he was elected on the strength of his party ticket, rather than as a particular person), then the PCC role will continue to have a fair number of people who are less than superlative.

And now to turn to his last tweet: despite the HASC's glaring scrutiny of some of the decisions taken around the Rotherham scandal, they are ultimately without executive power. Yes, the HASC has developed a high profile and is well resourced (reference Mr Ellis' tweet) but they have as much authority to remove Mr Wright (or any of the others in Rotherham involved in the horrendous state of affairs) as my cat.

Indeed, PCPs already have the potential to develop the kind of influence of which Mr Ellis speaks. But how many have done so?

In the end, the problem is one of singular power invested in one person who is only up for election every four years. 

Any suggestion that a PCC should be removable by (say) the Home Secretary or even a Police & Crime Panel is in direct conflict with the argument put forward for PCCs in the first place: singular power elected by and accountable to local people through the ballot box.

The writing is on the wall for PCCs (and Mr Wright has added his own scribbled message). Defenders of this governance role may think it can be tweaked and revised to make it work. However,  I honestly believe that PCCs will be a one term experiment that will consigned to the history books within a matter of months...

But if Mr Ellis (or Mr Wright) or anyone else wishes to respond... please do so.

Not quite saved by the division bell

I am currently riveted to my computer screen watching the proceedings of the Home Affairs Select Committee scrutiny of some of the people involved in the Rotherham Child Sexual Exploitation. The division bell has just rung, so we (including the two current witnesses: the Rotherham Council CEO, who has just resigned, and Strategic Director for Children, Young People and Families) all have time to draw breath. (Now watching it again while trying to write this too.)

The current and former Chief Constables have just left the room after what may be called, with understatement, a roasting. Med Hughes, the Chief until 2011 looked deeply reflective. While there will be many who will pour scorn, incredulity and indeed hate upon him, I am very concerned about him.

Emphatically, I am not going to pass judgement upon Mr Hughes since I am not privy to all the facts and I have no idea about what he did or did not do in his role as Chief Constable about this matter. But it concerns me (and I am sure a lot less than it concerns Mr Hughes) that he appears to have known so little as to what was happening on his patch.

How can a Chief Constable be so (seemingly / allegedly) out of touch? Or is this inevitable in an organisation of the size he was head of? Are all CEOs that out of touch? Or was (is?) the culture of SYP so 'compliant' that people will hide & finagle data so much that little truth gets through to the managerial echelons of the organisation? Did numbers become more important than people? In how many other organisations has this become so? (In how many other Government policies has this become so...?)

I hope the announced inquiry gets to the bottom of all this. The inquiry must, of course, be about holding people to account. It MUST also be about getting to the root cause of how and why action was not taken. This is likely to be a systemic problem and unlikely to be just about a few people being in dereliction of their duty.

Child Sexual Exploitation: some questions to address

This letter was published in the local newspaper (Buckingham & Winslow Advertiser) yesterday.

I submitted this letter last weekend, before a number of arrests were made in Aylesbury, Buckingham and nearby. I mention this fact as the germane content of the letter is coincidental with emerging events locally (Eight men charged with child sexual exploitation)
________________

Dear Editor

Nobody will have failed to have been horrified by the stories of child sexual exploitation (CSE) emerging from Rotherham. Last week you reported that Cllr Angela McPherson, the Bucks County Council Cabinet member for children’s services, said that “No council can ever say …that everything is watertight but we are really confident that we have robust [CSE] procedures in place”. I would like to debate this assertion a little and ask the councillor some questions.

Reference Keith Levett’s letter last week, I have spent some more ‘inordinate amount of effort’ reading through the latest Rotherham report in order to extract any learning points that we might usefully apply to our own County. (You can follow my live tweeting of my reading of the report by following #LTRR)

(And just for the record: Mr Levett & I clearly agree on the need to hold the top level political leadership to account for failings in care of vulnerable children. That is what my ‘tedious’ letter was trying to say!)

But to return to CSE, here are some significant findings from the Rotherham report that I think need to be taken on considered in the context of our County.

The Rotherham report highlights the work of a youth worker based service called ‘Risky Business’ which successfully built trusting relationships with some very damaged and scared young women & girls. Indeed I would go so far as to suggest that without this voluntary organisation (funded by the public purse), many of the horrific crimes in Rotherham would have gone unnoticed and unreported. Question number one to Cllr McPherson is: does the County Council fund outreach youth work sufficiently to enable intimidated young women to speak up, many of whom distrust the standard statutory services?

There is much evidence to suggest that there has been significant under reporting of CSE, particularly from the British-Asian communities in Rotherham. Asian girls, fearing personal and family stigma appear to be much less inclined to come forward with their concerns. The report challenges Rotherham not just to speak with the elder males of the local Asian communities but also younger women and girls. Question number two: does the County Council have excellent channels of communication with all members of the local Asian communities, not just a few older men?

I would also argue that the inquiry into Rotherham exposed a focus on massaging the figures to present a positive appearance that everything was OK. This was often done to the detriment of a real & honest focus on the people at risk. There are several instances of where senior managers and politicians were found to be in denial of the evidence that was being presented to them by frontline staff. Question number three: how confident is the Cabinet member that she is privy to the unvarnished experience and concerns of frontline social workers, youth workers and teachers?

Many of the victims of CSE in Rotherham were girls being looked after by the Council. (This was, I believe, a feature of the crimes that were committed down the road in Oxford as well.) It seems that being ‘in care’ in fact led to some of the girls being at greater risk from harm. This risk was multiplied when the girls were placed out of the area away from their wider family & social networks, leaving them vulnerable to the attentions of attentive, but predatory, older men. Buckinghamshire has a high proportion of looked after children being placed out of county. Question number four: what plans and arrangements are in place to bring more looked after children back to the county and provide adequate support to all looked-after children to help ensure that they are not at risk?

There is much more, but I would not wish this letter to go on too much either, no matter how important is the subject. I would end with a quote from the report:

“The combined effect of changes to local authority funding in England has been a dramatic reduction in resources available to Rotherham and neighbouring Councils. By 2016, Rotherham will have lost 33% of its spending power in real terms compared to 2010/11. The comparison for the whole of England is a reduction of 20%, and for a Council like Buckinghamshire, only 4.5% reduction.”

Be thankful that you live in Bucks and not Rotherham which (perhaps you can deduce why…) appears to be subject to cuts seven times worse that what is happening to this county.

Sincerely yours

The 'anti-logic' of racism & hate

Unsurprisingly, I have got caught up in a few twitter 'debates' about child sexual exploitation (CSE) in recent days. If people could write their posts on twitter in purple ink, I suspect many would. I have been met with what has felt at times, to be a barrage of hate against Islam. I have been pointed towards 'research' which 'proves' Europe is still engaged in a 16th century battle with the exponents of the religion. And I am left somewhat disturbed by a website that has to declare that it has no links to the English Defence League...

The argument seems to be this: many (quite possibly most, although I do not have the accurate figures) of the perpetrators of CSE in Rotherham and elsewhere are of British/Pakistani heritage or have a background that is Muslim. 'Therefore', since this proportion is so high (compared the overall population), this is evidence of a pervasive culture of child sexual abuse within the religion of Islam - and therefore its followers. Similarly, since Labour have run Rotherham over many years, CSE is the 'fault' of the Labour Party.

It is at times like this that I wish logic was a compulsory element of the national curriculum (alongside maths, english, science and, I wish, sex/relationships education).

When I carefully state that extrapolating from a few members of a wider group to 'prove' the whole group is the same, is just not logical, I am shouted at. Evidently when I dare to suggest that other parts of the country experiencing CSE and which are not controlled by a Labour council suggests that the problem is more complex, I am accused of changing the subject. Clearly I am in denial when I believe that vast numbers / majority of families of Muslim and/or British/Pakistani heritage love and care for their children as much as anyone else.

What is it with all this hate that people switch off the logical circuits in their brains?

Just as we have to understand where CSE comes from so that we can develop effective strategies to reduce its incidence, we also have to understand why some people are so prone to hate others. Both CSE and hate are tearing people and our communities apart!

Rotherham & Child Sexual Exploitation: what next?

Late last night, I finished reading the Jay Inquiry into how Rotherham Council dealt (or rather hasn't dealt) with child sexual exploitation in the town. The report also mentions several other agencies, particularly the local police, but the main focus was on the Council itself. I live tweeted (160+) my reading of the report, mostly with extracts (occasionally highlighted by me) but also some comments & reflections as I went through it. You can see all that I tweeted with the hash tag of #LTRR (live tweeting rotherham report*).

I hesitate to add any more actions to the 15 recommended ones made at the end of the report: since I have only read the report rather than created it out of a thousand conversations had and documents read.

I do hope that councillors and professional staff involved in child safeguarding and protection from all councils read the report and reflect on whether any of it conclusions might apply to their own organisation.

My overwhelming impression from reading the report is here was a council that was defiantly in denial of the evidence that was being brought forward. Here also was a council that seemed more focused on the numbers than on the young women and girls behind those numbers. And here was a council where potent scrutiny was mostly absent. Moreover, here was a senior leadership that was not truly listening to its front line staff and where the channels of communication with the communities were decidedly incomplete. 

So what next? Here are three provocative ideas that might help future 'Rotherhams' (and Oxfords, etc etc) from happening:

1. Abandon first past the post electoral (FPTP) systems for local government (like Scotland has already done) in favour of more proportional ones. FPTP is designed to create large majorities in the council chamber when far greater political diversity exists amongst the electorate. This will help ensure better scrutiny & decision making in the future.
2. Protect whistleblowers and independent researchers even more: with legislation if needs be and throughout the public services and commercial organisations. 
3. End the daft performance management culture that plucks targets from the air and attempts to turn the world into one big spreadsheet. I am not a number! Nor were/are all the girls & young women of Rotherham and beyond.

(*If there is anyone with much more Twitter knowledge that I have who can turn these tweets into a story in the right order... I would be most grateful!)