The risk register is published! (Lincolnshire Police and G4S partnership)

I have just received a copy of the Lincolnshire Police / G4S risk register. I have uploaded a copy of it here so that it is accessible for all to see. This includes, of course, the Lincolnshire public who, ultimately, are the ones at risk.

It makes very interesting reading and I have not fully woven together all of my thoughts. I thought it best to get it up and out as soon as possible rather than do a full analysis on my own first. Moreover, the analysis can now be crowdsourced. I don’t have any unique inside knowledge or specialist project/programme skills (although I am a registered programme management practitioner - Managing Successful Programmes). There are many others out there who may wish to share thoughts on this document, especially those who are working inside the police service. Please feel free. (And if you want to be an anonymous source, you can email me)

My initial thoughts are:

Risk 1 (Failure of strategic partnership with G4S) – the estimate of failure is given high impact but very low probability of it happening. Really? Was this drawn up before or after the Olympics? (I do not have that information embedded in the file.) The control seems only to be about monitoring performance. Where are the mitigating actions to prevent such an occurrence? Or is the likelihood of this happening deemed to be so low, they are not really bothering until something really hits the fan?

Risk 2 (Lack of resources and skills to manage a contract this large) – good call on this being a significant risk. This is a very big risk. So how does Lincolnshire plan on managing this? With "some legacy support” and “consultancy support”. So have I got this correct? The biggest risk in this outsourcing contract (it is a 3 X 4 = 12) is being mitigated by… outsourcing it to another (?) consultancy? That is comforting…

Risk 3 (Failure to consider the impact of outsourcing on retained services and our current pool of volunteers) – now this is interesting. So the risk is merely a failure to consider. Not a failure to optimise, or integrate, or even handle. Just that the risk is a failure to consider. That is easy then: I have considered the impact and decided it is big. But now I can move on! However, perhaps the author meant more than that though since the consequences are “failure to link changes and services into cohesive processes across in scope and out of scope services. Impact on those volunteers availability to continue in their function, or on those staff that manage volunteers”. In other words they are worrying (as I did below, and I promise I did not have this document before today) that by working with a profit making organisation volunteers may think twice about carrying on volunteering. Wow. That is big. Really big. And their control on this is to “Ensure that force volunteer practises and ambitions are communicated and considered by any potential partner. Partner due diligence to improve understanding of in scope and retained services. Client side and implementation team structure to be developed with consideration to transition impact on retained services.” Have you got that? Easy to understand. No real problem then…

Now I could go with the other risks but I promised I would not. But what do you think of risks 4 to 13? Have risks 14 to 99 been overlooked? If so, what would you have put on the list?

And now how confident are you that this contract (the biggest one of its kind in the police service as far as I am aware) has adequate risk management procedures & actions in place such that there could never be any reduction in the safety of communities in Lincolnshire? Are you more or less confident now that you have seen the risk register?

Perhaps you would like to give it a measure: is it a 1 X 1 or a 4 X 4 level of risk? (or somewhere in between?)

PS: As many people will know, I have been beavering way to get a copy of the risk register since April and I took the whole matter to the Information Commissioner who ruled in my favour. If you want to 'reward' me for my efforts, I am currently growing a 'Mo' for 'Movember' to raise money for research into prostate cancer. Please donate, whatever you can! Just click the link below 

Jon's Mo Space

Result after just five days - think what will be possible after 30!

Innovation & evaluation

One of the ideas that Tim Starkey is promoting is the need to look for fresh ways to tackle such issues as internet and telephone fraud. He makes the case that older (perhaps more trusting) people, people with dementia and other other vulnerable people are the ones who are often being taken for a ride by the tricksters*. He has identified that postal workers often have a sense of who is being exploited by the kinds (and volume) of mail certain households receive. Tim is keen to see if the dots can be joined up so that helpful advice on avoiding fraud can be targeted at people who maybe most at risk.

It seems to me to be a good idea and certainly one that is worth exploring further.

Last night at the hustings in Oxford, I happened to be sitting behind the Chief Fire Officer for Oxfordshire: Dave Etheridge. We got talking. He outlined for me a scheme that they are running in Thame (??) whereby local young people convicted of a motoring offence are sent to this fire station for a couple of hours. During this time they are (safely) placed in a burnt out car and 'cut out' by a fire crew. They are then shown a pretty graphic film about a car accident. All the while, the firefighters get to know the young person and what interests them. So far, he told me, they have had a 100% success rate such that none of the young people who have been on a visit have gone on to commit any more motoring offences. (They are carefully evaluating the intervention, I understand.)

So here's the thing: will PCCs see it as a critical part of their role to support and sponsor such innovations or are the of the view that not much needs to really change? Yes, I am talking about you Anthony Stansfeld... "If elected, I don't think there are going to be any great changes in policing." (Conservative Home blog)

So when you come to cast your vote now or on the day, will you vote for a PCC who is keen on innovation & evaluation or one that wants to conserve the status quo?

* Though let's be clear, we can all be duped!

Oxford hustings: the need for circumspection

It is rumoured that only in Oxford might you overhear people debating in a café where one person will say "and ninthly...!" Perhaps not surprisingly then, that the six PCC candidates were faced with some pretty challenging questions & statements last night.

Among these was one woman (although I strained to hear all of her words: memo to the organisers - a roving mike would be have been helpful!) who highlighted the oncoming cases to be tried soon in Oxford of men who have been accused of sexual exploitation of girls and young women. (Here is a link to the news stories in the local Oxford Times.) The questioner asked how the candidates would handle the likely extensive media interest in the court cases if they were to become the PCC.

Their answers were illuminating and worrying. Four of the six candidates, to varying degrees, alluded to the ethnic dimension of these cases and linked it to what they deemed as similar cases in the North of England (for example Rotherham & Rochdale), although without mentioning those towns as such. I cannot remember the exact details but I think Anthony Stansfeld went on to talk of political correctness hampering the speed of police investigations. Tim & John were more circumspect.

Why so worrying?

This is not the place to go into this matter in depth (instead read this excellent article in the Independent, if you wish) but suffice to say that seemingly calmly mixing in a racial element (when I don't think the questioner mentioned this aspect) indicates, for me, a lack of sensitivity, a less than full commitment to evidence based practice and a plain deficit in political 'nous'. Someone in the position of PCC, could easily and unwittingly fall into the trap of fanning the flames of racism and hate in such instances that could well emerge in Oxford in coming weeks. A less than wise PCC could also (again unwittingly in all likelihood) be perceived as supporting the line that political correctness had prevented the police from properly investigating the crimes and led to more harm happening as a consequence. While this plays to the gallery, the impact on police morale (another subject raised last night) could be severe.

These are feverish times with the Jimmy Savile case and linked emerging stories. It is in this context that the Oxford cases will come to court. There are serious concerns that these and similar cases have not been pursued in the past with as much vigour as, perhaps, they should have. However to ascribe this all to political correctness 'gawn mad' is simply not proven (see the Indie article linked above). The reasons are far more complex that that, I would contend. These reasons probably include a mixture of resources, misogyny, beliefs about the credibility of child victims/witnesses, fear of 'crying wolf' or making 'career limiting moves', poor joining up of the dots between public agencies and possibly even corruption (etc. etc. etc.)

That four of the six PCC candidates appeared to leap towards what I will call an oversimplified (dare I say 'Daily Mail') assessment of some of the underlying themes is worrying for me. However, I do take on board, that this was in a packed and busy meeting, and I may not have grasped the subtlety of what Barry, Geoff, Anthony and Patience each said. So please feel free to add your 'cold light of day' comments below if you wish...

But this very clever question and the answers given highlighted just how much the role of PCC, with its singular & high profile, will demand of incumbents up and down the country in a few days time...

Web democracy in action (an extraordinary allegation part two)

At the Aylesbury hustings a week ago, Anthony Stansfeld suggested that I and/or Cllr Michael Beall had been going through his bank accounts. The full story is below in two different posts: here and later here. I wrote to Anthony Stansfeld and he later retracted his remarks and apologised. I published his email saying this below.

Meanwhile, the County Council website was still showing the interchange without caveat. I asked for this matter to be addressed urgently last week. Their first and reasonable response was to take the video offline pending a technical fix.

The video has now been reinstated with a 'statement of clarification' embedded in the time line on the right hand side of the screen. This is satisfactory to me - although I would have preferred some subtitles to appear on the video itself but I recognise that technologically that would have far more difficult.

So, you can now see the video again with the embedded retraction and apology here. Just scroll down the timeline to 1 hour 42 minutes and there is a link you can click on. It takes you here.

Meanwhile, I hope that all the people who applauded Cllr Stansfeld for his remarks may wish to reflect exactly what it was they were applauding...

All in all a good day for transparency, accountability and democracy, I feel.

Going postal: casting my second preference

I have been a postal voter for many years now. My work is unpredictable and I can be away on election days so it is the best option. And so yesterday I cast my vote and in a short while I will be posting the letter.

My first preference was easy, of course. Tim Starkey got my first 'X'. And then I pondered, who should get my second preference, if anyone?

You probably won't be surprised to learn that I campaigned hard for a yes vote in the AV referendum last year. Despite appearances perhaps, I am not a tribal Labour voter and have been a committed pluralist for a long time, probably always. (I was one of the organisers of the 'Progressive Alliance' at Reading University Students Union which wrested control from the Tories who had hitherto run the place while the middle & left were divided. The PA even included the International Socialists which became the SWP by the way.) Much of my commitment to pluralism is based on raw pragmatism and a recognition that politics should always be about ideas & outcomes rather than the sources of those the policies.

I know all this will damn me in the eyes of many on the Left and in the Labour Party. So be it. But because of all this, I had to use my second preference vote. These second preference votes might just make the difference between two very different candidates at the end. I wanted my second vote to influence that final stage.

But I did not use politics to decide who I should give my second preference to: instead I decided to use who I thought would make the best 'professional' PCC. (And just in case you are wondering, I judge Tim to be the best on this front as well). But who came second?

Patience Tayo Awe has shown herself to be a very inexperienced candidate in my view whose remarks at the Aylesbury hustings were at best very unwise and at worst possibly damaging to an ongoing investigation by the IPCC. She did herself no favours and continues to cite her project management qualification as what equips her to be a PCC. Patience did not get my second vote.

Barry Cooper, whilst clearly very bright, passionate and indeed likeable, does not have the 'legs' in governance matters. His experience of being part of any kind of political structure appears very limited and his claim to be independent whilst representing (what I think UKIP believes) to be the fastest growing political party in the Britain is a contradiction too far. Barry did not get my second vote.

Geoff Howard is in a party of one, in my opinion. Having left (or shown the door, I am not clear?) three other political parties indicates to me a limited ability to get on with others. Being a PCC will require someone to build bridges across many divides, not least with the Chief Constable. In short, I don't think he has the humility or nous to do that. Geoff did not get my second vote.

Anthony Stansfeld clearly has experience in these matters and his position on the police authority would give him a head start over many other candidates. However I think he paints his past experience just a bit too sympathetically for my liking. His stated commitment to more of the same would mean if he became PCC, his would be a lack lustre tenure and Thames Valley Police would effectively go backwards. Anthony did not get my second vote.

Which brings me to John Howson.

I have met many Labour colleagues and indeed many Tories who despise all Lib Dems as political opportunists who sit on the fence until they spot where the public mood is going. There are now many more people by dint of 'pledgegate' who will never ever consider voting Lib Dem. As a Westminster party, they are heading for the back of a couple of taxis, in my opinion. Their record in government is ragged and shabby. I for one, will never forgive them for helping create the legislation in which the NHS will be fragmented in an incoherent and therefore dangerous mix of providers that will damage the health of the nation.

But I said that politics would not come into my decision about where to cast my second preference vote. Part of my decision making was negative: if it comes down a contest between John and Anthony, I know who I want don't want to win. But also positive as I believe John to be a deep thinking person who is committed to making a positive difference to community safety in Thames Valley. He has the political experience and wit to edge policing and crime matters in a good direction. And so I did cast my second vote for John.

I am not advising anyone else to vote the way I have done: each person must make up their own mind. All that I hope is that people vote deliberately rather than hurriedly.

Secret diary of a PCC (day six)

Of course the government never imagined how irony might be used by the Great British Public to destabilise the whole PCC policy. Speaking for myself of course, I am just glad they did.

I suspect that Theresa May will never quite live down what happened in those wet and wintry days in the run up to the November 15 poll. She and Cameron had been doing their level best to raise awareness of the PCC elections: going out on the stump, delivering leaflets and paying for a stupidly expensive set of TV adverts. (I think the advertising agency and TV companies might have smelled their desperation from a couple of blocks away.) And then it happened: the idea of voting for the worst possible candidate from each list on offer suddenly went viral.

Lord Blair had made an attempt to get people not to vote at all but people quickly realised that this would never work, a very wrong person might get in. That would not do. Others exhorted people to spoil their ballot papers until everyone realised that the government would merely spin and blame it all on the supplementary voting system.

And then someone tweeted, if we have had Jedward’s Eurovision song & Ann Widdecombe’s tango, why not show the government what you really think of PCCs by voting for the worst candidate in each area?

It was a simple idea that caught on. Suddenly twitter was alight with people discussing just who was the worst candidate in each area. All those people who had been arguing for the need to take politics out of policing suddenly had a way of making it happen. Individuals set up websites to judge who were the worst candidates. Slowly one by one, each area came to a decision. It was a marvel of the internet age and no doubt a couple of Social Media PhD research proposals are being written as I write. How did this happen, how did it come to pass that the voters of England and Wales tapped into the hive mind of twitter and just knew what they had to do…?

Of course for the candidates, resistance was futile. They could only watch the events transpire, as details of their CVs & public statements were dissected in remorseless detail. Rather poignantly, some candidates spotted what was happening and then said or did things to make their candidacy sound even lamer. However the public recognised this for what it was (desperate) and calmly took them off the list, reasoning that anyone who wanted the position that much could not be trusted to be that bad.

Yours truly, just watched and waited. I could see the way the wind was blowing…

In some areas it was clear from the start. Any candidate who talked about their hobbies or names of their pets was immediately selected. Any candidate who talked about making traditionally high crime inner city areas the ‘safest places to be’ were chosen. And of course, any candidate who took it upon themselves to criticise all police officers as dishonest was selected. The public figured (rightly) that the ensuing spats between them and the Chief Constables would make great news stories.

And so it came to pass, the worst PCC candidates were elected up and down the country (I am the exception, naturally). And now the Government is paddling madly upstream to make it appear that the policy was a success. Meanwhile, the public of England & Wales are guffawing into their pints and glasses of Chardonnay.

It is the first meeting of all the new PCCs at the Home Office next week. I simply can't wait.

Day one

Day two

Day three

Day four

Day five

Welcome memo from Chief

Unsung heroes

I have just returned from helping clear up the flotsam, jetsam & sparklers from last night's Buckingham Town Council firework display. This is one of our Town Council's regular events which attracts between three and four thousand local people. Last night was no different.

It has been raining hard here in Buckingham this morning but out on the field were a dozen bedraggled men and their children from the Buckingham Table clearing this patch of public space. They are some of the unsung heroes of local communities. I cannot speak for the Council of course, but thanks from me.

It is people like this who help bind our communities together. They are the same people who dropped everything to look for April a few weeks ago. And their sisters and brothers sit in innumerable parent teacher association meetings or make egg rolls for the Guide camp. They are the people who do things for others in a billion small acts of kindness and generosity. And they don't expect to be paid for doing so - in fact they would probably be offended if it was offered.

We need these people to sustain and improve the well being of our communities. Policing by consent is not just about people passively accepting what the police do, it is about actively supporting the police service and, indeed, taking action to help build safer communities as well.

Now what happens if the police service is privatised? Will people consent to that? Will the ordinary and unsung heroes of our communities come out on wet mornings to help a private contractor make a bigger profit, that will be scooped up and shipped off to a tax haven somewhere?

I am not sure I will.

This is why I have been blogging about the National Blood and Transplant service and the fact that they, more or less, subsidise private health care providers. This is also why I hope that PCCs get elected who will not roll over and allow our precious police service personnel to be forced to wear corporate logos along with their police crests. And this is why I am applauding the Tories who are (finally) seeing what is happening and resisting this wave of privatisation as in Cornwall and Barnet.

And this is why I am appalled that numerous Tory (and other) PCC candidates who are not addressing the issue on their websites. Are they 'frit' of this issue?

I will be hoping that come 16/11/12, the people of England and Wales will not have installed a whole number of privateers to run our police services. I hope that our long tradition of policing by consent will not be consigned to history.

And I hope that the unsung heroes of communities will carry on picking up rubbish in the driving rain and searching for missing children. 

Let us NOT commodify everything!

Building the credible back story

As people will have readily observed, most candidates for PCC rôles around the country have spent considerable time documenting convincing back stories on which to base their claim to be judged the best person to become PCC. Some of these stories include heroic acts of derring-do, extensive experience in the nooks and crannies of the criminal justice system, and superlative abilities at making change happen.

However, as I highlighted in my Guardian article from a couple of weeks back, I focused question five (of six sets of questions to scrutinise your PCC candidates) on credibility:

Many candidates have made much of their capability to be the PCC for their area. Does the candidate's website give accessible links for people to find out more about their work or political record? Or are the voters expected to take the credentials of the candidate on trust?

What is to stop candidates making dramatic claims which are based upon nothing more than bullish self confidence, a generous interpretation of their actual impact on past events and even straight untruths? The answer, sadly, is not much...

So naturally this line of thought got me to do a bit more digging into the CV of one Cllr Anthony Stansfeld. I have yet to see his campaign leaflet, but I am told that it contains claims about his influence on performance improvement and neighbourhood policing. I have dealt with these claims below here on performance and here on neighbourhood policing. His claims do not stand much scrutiny but I am happy to publish the evidence if Cllr Stansfeld can substantiate his claims.

Indeed, I do wonder if there might even be some disquiet within the Conservative camp about some of his extensive claims?

But what of Cllr Stansfeld's history further back? He makes much of his military career and his position as Managing Director of Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd (PBN). His promotion from marketing director to chief executive officer was reported in February 1992. His departure was reported just over five years later in 1997. It is difficult to find out much about what happened during his time as CEO/MD of the company since it is such a long time ago and well before the digital age that we are all used to. However, I have done some more digging and found this reference - the veracity and provenance of which I cannot vouch for, naturally:

It was reported in 1994 that the Swiss company, Pilatus Flugzeugwerke opened a military trainer production line at its UK subsidiary on the Isle of Wight, called Pilatus Britten-Norman Ltd (UK), to side step tough new arms-export regulations.(Flight International 6/4/94). One reason suggested for the move was that the Swiss aircraft company wanted to take advantage of laxer British rules on arms exports. Pilatus Aircraft, a subsidiary of Oerlikon-Buhrle, currently manufactures the PC-7 and PC-9 in Stans, near Lucerne. The planes, originally developed for training, have been widely sold to countries such as Guatemala, Burma, Iraq, Iran and El Salvador. Swiss law prohibits military sales to 'areas of conflict'. Pilatus has long claimed that its planes are not military equipment and that, if armies buy them for training, that is not the same as buying them for killing. At least one company in Belgium openly offers gun ready conversion services. (Observer 27/3/94). The UK subsidiary already has a licenced production agreement with the Philippines, the PADC (Philippines Aerospace Development Corporation) was reported to be building the Islander light transport and passenger aircraft. The Islander has A STOL capability and can be used for cargo, passenger, survey, aerial spraying and in its Martime Defender version, maritime surveillance operations. (European Parliament: Scientific & technological options assessment - an appraisal of technologies of political control 6/1/98)

The original article in Flight International can be read here: Pilatus plans export of trainer assembly. I don't know how whether any of what is written about here happened and whether the allegations can be substantiated. But this is part of PBN's digital footprint (as it called) and therefore it is part of Cllr Anthony Stansfeld's as well since he was MD at the time. (STOL means short take off and landing, in case you were wondering.)

There are other articles too on Flight International. Cllr Anthony Stansfeld once wrote an extensive letter about the licensing of single engine aircraft for commercial flights. (His letter can be read here and do note what the editor says at the end of the letter.) This prompted an surprising response from an Australian in the same professional field who declared, at the beginning of long reposte:

I read Anthony Stansfeld's letter "Single-engine aircraft risks" (Flight International, 15-21 July, P49) with incredulity. Robust debate on safety issues is to be applauded, but emotional outpourings of unsubstantiated personal beliefs are no substitute for facts.

That was, of course, Terry Wesley-Smith's personal opinion in September 1998 and I have no view, knowing nothing either of the science or emotions of single engine aircraft safety.

In the end, the voting public of Thames Valley will decide whether the present day Anthony Stansfeld has a CV replete with substantive experience and a credible track record of change leadership, or whether he has created a back story based upon "unsubstantiated personal beliefs" and omitting any (alleged) involvement with the export of "training planes" to Guatemala, Burma, Iraq, Iran and El Salvador in the mid 1990's.

We shall see what choices are made...

Neighbourhood policing: the facts

I am told (although I was not there) that there was something of a 'spat' last night at the hustings in Finchampstead over claims made by Anthony Stansfeld that he introduced Neighbourhood Policing (NP) to Thames Valley. There was a challenge to his version of history.

As I say, I was not there. But I have been around Thames Valley Police for a very long time and did my first bit of work with them back at the end of the 80's. I have watched what has happened and been a part of its various developments too. I also know Peter Neyroud, the former Chief Constable of Thames Valley, very well. As many people will know, Peter is backing Tim Starkey to become PCC.

Peter is a man of huge integrity and long experience in policing matters. He emailed me this afternoon with these words:

FACT: I introduced Neighbourhood Policing into Thames Valley, with the full support of the Police Authority. Mr Stansfield was never a member of the Police Authority when I was Chief.

FACT: I was one of the original Chief Constables - including Dennis O'Connor, Matt Baggott and Paul Stephenson (then in Lancs) - who agreed to run the National Reassurance pilot. I ran it in Burghfield and Greenham in Newbury to test rural and county town environments. The pilots were evaluated by Rachel Tuffin and her team and the programme led directly to bid in the CSR in 2005 for neighbourhood policing teams

FACT: Neighbourhood policing was supported and funded by a LABOUR government, with very strong personal support from David Blunkett and Tony Blair. I was personally present at many of the meetings at which decisions were taken.

FACT: the Tories ran a consistent knocking campaign against Neighbourhood Policing until it became clear that NP and the PCSO's, who were introduced to support them, was a winning idea with voters...

FACT: As the CEO of National Policing Improvement Agency, under a Labour Government, I oversaw the programme to ensure that NP was introduced in every ward in the country.

FACT: the greatest threat to the sustainability of the NP approach is the Tory funding cuts beyond the 12% that Labour - supported by the HMIC and relying on figures that I developed in NPIA - argued was sustainable. 

Knowing Peter, he will be able to evidence each one of those comments extensively. 

So Cllr Stansfeld, perhaps you would like to share with us precisely what you and the Conservative Government have done to introduce/support Neighbourhood Policing in recent years. Perhaps Cllr Stansfeld's involvement is similar to his claims regarding performance improvement in Thames Valley (see below)?

Let's have the debate here!

(You can read a good report on the whole Finchampstead event by Matthew Dent here.)

Blood money (part two)

Previously, I have been raising concerns that the NHS blood & transplant service is in effect, subsidising profit making health care. My earlier blog post has been one of the top trending posts on this blog in the last month or so. You can read part one here.

I had a reply a couple of days ago to my challenge to the service. Here it is, reprinted in full:

Further to your conversation with our Customer Services team on 4 October and your subsequent email requesting further information from NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) regarding the price of blood and the cost to private hospitals. 

I am writing to advise you that we are able to provide you with the following information in response to your request.  

I can confirm that NHSBT provides blood products for all patients equally, regardless of where they are being treated. The price of blood that is charged to all hospitals includes the costs that NHSBT need to recover for the collection, manufacturing, testing and issue of each blood component. However while the cost of routine deliveries to NHS hospitals are included in the price of blood, private hospitals are charged an additional fee for every delivery NHSBT makes to them. In addition many private hospitals have agreements with their local NHS hospital that if they order blood products for a patient that aren’t used they will then give the unused product to the local NHS hospital free of charge rather than letting it go to waste. 

Decisions about the price of blood are made by the National Commissioning Group (NCG) which consists of representation from the Department of Health, NHSBT, the National Blood Transfusion Committee (NBTC) and several Consultant Haematologists from NHS Hospitals. More information about this group including, previous meeting minutes can be found via the following link; http://hospital.blood.co.uk/library/service_agree_home/NCG/

So, private hospitals are charged a delivery fee, but other than that they are receiving blood at the same price as the NHS.

In my view, this is equivalent to a subsidy since no commercial provider of blood products could afford to offer their services at cost price to all their customers. They would go out of business. This means that your blood and taxes are helping profit driven private health care services make bigger profits.

Do you find that acceptable?

If you are a donor, how does this make you feel?

_________

For info, here is the email I sent them:

I have just had a useful phone conversation with a member of your team about the commercial mechanics arising out of the points you have made to me. She assured me that the unit cost you cite is what you require to run your organisation overall. In other words, you are not making a profit out of the blood that you collect. The unit cost is there to pay for all the processing and staff time (etc) that it takes to collect, store and ship the blood you have collected out of people like me. 
Firstly, have I understood this correctly?

To be absolutely clear, I think that any human being in need of blood should be able to get it. No question about that. However, blood is one of a number of items that any hospital needs in order to function. Other items include staff uniforms, medical drugs, equipment etc. Many of these (perhaps even most of these items) are provided by profit making companies who, not unreasonably, expect the NHS and Private hospitals to pay at more than cost price. If they didn’t, those supplying companies would go bust.

So therefore I am wondering how it is that you provide blood at cost price to both NHS and private hospitals. Because as it is cost price, you are in effect discounting from a market rate (one that you would have to charge were your organisation to be a profit making company like a private hospital) and consequently you are subsidising your customers – both NHS and private bodies. Moreover, you are subsidising them based upon the fact that blood is donated freely to you by me and people like me. So it like a double subsidy almost.

Now I would not have a problem with this, if I knew that all my freely donated blood was going towards free health care, where the unit cost charged was merely an accounting wheeze to spread scarce resources around the NHS fairly. Just like I put my time freely into the local community, I am happy to put my blood freely into a free NHS.

However, this is not the case. Because you charge private hospitals the same unit cost, I (and fellow donors) are effectively subsidising commercial organisations. It is the equivalent of me going to work an hour for free for a commercial organisation out which they would get a profit and I would get nothing.

Now I really, really wish we did not have commercialised health care. For me health is basic human right and I am happy to pay my taxes to contribute towards socialised healthcare free at the point of need etc provided according to need (not ability to pay). However the Government has determined that ‘market forces’ should now underpin how our health services should operate and suppliers must bid commercially for contracts to provide health care and so forth. So if we are in this profit driven world, we should really be IN this world.

I am not happy that my freely donated blood is effectively subsidising private hospitals. In my view, either they should organise their own blood supply (by establishing blood collection & storage systems) and manage all the costs involved in that, or they should pay you a proper market rate for the blood you provide to them. I would then be happy that your organisation would make a surplus which could then be ploughed back in my free NHS. 

What makes a great PCCCV?

The 'Choose my PCC' website has offered the candidates their opportunity to display proudly their credentials and plans for policing and crime were they to be elected. Some have grasped the nettle and produced some quite detailed plans and with only a minimal nod to their past experience (see Mr Simmonds, Tory candidate for Northamptonshire or Ms Rogers, Labour candidate for Dorset). Others have placed more emphasis upon the direct experience that they bring (see Ms Rayment, Labour candidate for Hampshire or Mr Alston, Tory candidate for Essex).

Some, as I have indicated below, just seem to have missed the point entirely (yes I am talking about you again Mr Passmore, Tory candidate for Suffolk) for whom I recommend this website: how to write a successful CV.

And then I stumble across Mr Ashton (Tory candidate for Lancashire) who says on his own website "When I left I joined the family business and grew Ashton Garden Centre to one of the best in the Fylde.  After selling the business, to concentrate on my council service, I started part time work as an inspector for the Royal Horticultural Society"

And then there is this clipping I found in a local newspaper:

A GARDEN centre, which fell victim to the credit crunch, could become a site for new homes. The owner of Ashton Nurseries in Lytham, which closed earlier this year, has been granted permission to build a residential complex of between 10 and 13 homes, on the Mythop Road site. Tim Ashton, who owns the garden centre, blamed increased competition from other garden centres and the recession for closure of the nursery. Mr Ashton said: "The reason we had to close was probably a mixture of increased competition and the economy making it difficult to run the business."

So now I am confused. Perhaps Mr Ashton might like to clear matters up as these two statements do not seem compatible. But perhaps I am missing some of the subtlety?

An extraordinary allegation (UPDATED...)

I have mentioned this below but I have now had a chance to review the webcast recording of the event in Aylesbury where Anthony Stansfeld made an extraordinary allegation. You can watch what he says by going here and scrolling through to 1 hour 42 minutes in. You will hear my colleague Labour Cllr Michael Beall ask a question and then Cllr Stansfeld's response.

Amongst his remarks he says:

"and you've gone through my bank accounts and expense claims in huge detail and I know that.."

I am really not sure how Cllr Stansfeld thinks I have the power to trawl through his bank account in 'huge detail' (which I assume would also be an illegal act were I have to have done it). But I can confirm here that I have neither gone through his bank accounts nor his expenses at all.

Now I would like Cllr Stansfeld to retract that statement and offer me an apology. He has the opportunity to do that below and I will happily print his statement. We can all make mistakes in the heat of the moment, and I would be prepared to forgive this one.

However, if he fails to acknowledge my objection to his public allegation, then I may have to reconsider my first reaction in the post below.

UPDATE (1/11/12): Late yesterday afternoon, I sent the email below to the email address published on his website. I had no reply by this morning, so I have now also written to his West Berkshire Council email address, which he has used in the past in writing to me. I await his response.

Dear Mr Stansfeld

On Monday evening in Aylesbury, in your response to a question from Cllr Michael Beall about your declarations of interests on the TVPA and West Berkshire Council websites, you appeared to me to allege that I had been trawling through your expenses and bank accounts. Specifically, and I quote from the recorded webcast, I believe you said "and you've gone through my bank accounts and expense claims in huge detail and I know that.."

First let me state clearly that I have never sought to examine your expenses – although if I had wished to they are public records. But I have not.

Moreover, I have not gone through your bank accounts. Not only would have I have no idea as to how I would gain access to such information but also it would be an illegal act, I understand. By saying what you said, I believe you have publicly accused me of something illegal. 

I think it is highly likely that you made this statement in the heat of the moment, as it were, and I would like to offer you the opportunity to retract what you said and perhaps even apologise. I will be happy to accept both. 

I look forward to your response. Thank you.
Very best wishes

UPDATE 2: I have just now received this email from Cllr Stansfeld. I am happy to accept his retraction and apology. (11.10, 1/11/12)

Mr Harvey,

I did not mean you had literally gone through my bank accounts and if I gave that impression I apologise. I am aware that you have made contact with the Council through FOI regarding my business interests and have been interested in my Council expenses.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Yours sincerely,
Anthony

Although I am still curious about the expenses thing. It is not so critical naturally, but genuinely I have not be inquiring into his expenses. Hmmm....?

Aylesbury PCC Hustings

This was an eye opening meeting.

Councillors (County, Districts and Parishes) mostly made up the audience but with the addition of some members of the 'ordinary' public. Being a Labour councillor in Buckinghamshire is a bit like being a teetotaller at the Munich beer festival: you feel just a tad out of place. I was certainly made to feel that way during parts of yesterday evening...

The published agenda said that each candidate would have 5 minutes to address us and then there would be 15 minutes for questioning from the floor. I was not alone, I think, in expecting a fairly short but frustrating meeting until it became clear that we would have each candidate at a time followed by questions just to each one. The meeting went from 4.30 to around 6.45pm.

The candidates came in alphabetical order which meant that Patience Tayo Awe was on first. (The whole meeting was webcast and will be stored in their library, I believe. Pretty soon, I would imagine you will be able to see her presentation and response to questions from the floor on the Buckinghamshire County Council website here - as well as all the others.) I had picked up on her interest in the riots of last year and so I asked her this question:

What views do you have about the riots which happened in London and parts of Thames Valley in the Summer of 2011? As PCC what action would you take to prevent such riots happening on our streets again?

(If you click the link above and play the tape from 12"37' onwards you will hear my question and her response) She particularly thanked me for question. She then launched into a list of allegations and dramatic conclusions about the causes of the riots that prompted the Chair of the proceedings to remove his glasses give her what can only be described as a double take. There were similar reactions on the floor.

Paul Scoins, the political reporter from BBC Three Counties Radio tweeted back and forth with me:

As Paul indicated, I too would not wish to repeat her statements here, but I suspect that these will be of interest to a number of people in London and perhaps more widely. Assuming the webcast is fully archived, you will be able to listen to and watch what she said before too long...

The meeting moved on in alphabetical order. Next up was Barry Cooper the UKIP candidate. He was closely questioned on whether, if elected, he would give up his role in the family business (which seems to involve about six members of his family, if I heard correctly). He said that he would dedicate himself 100% to the job of PCC. I asked him this question:

If elected, will you wish to use the car and chauffeur that two candidates have sought to arrange for the PCC in advance? If so, would you wish to extend this facility to all officers and staff with a TVP wide brief based in the Kidlington HQ?

He said that he would to the first question as it represented vfm for the taxpayer as he would be able to work in the back of the car. He wasn't sure about the second question but would look into it.

Don't worry, I am not going to go through the whole meeting here, but I had to mention this question. After Barry had finished, the Chair of meeting then repeated his request that questions from the floor be polite and (looking in my direction) said there should be no "innuendo or slurrs". As you might expect, I took slight exception to this and later sought to read out an extract of the email I had received from the Police Authority Chief Executive on the subject (see below) where he said very clearly:

Two candidates (including Anthony Stansfeld) did express a desire for some form of transport facility to enable them to effectively cover the Thames Valley force area.

I pointed our therefore, there were only facts behind my question, no "innuendo or slurrs".

Anyway... time proceeded and soon it was Anthony Stansfeld's turn. A Labour colleague, Cllr Michael Beall from Aylesbury, asked him about the inconsistent information he has shared about his commercial interests. Cllr Stansfeld attempted to bat this away saying that he had recorded two companies he was a non-executive Chairman of even though he did not have to... He then turned his attention to me and accused me of making inquiries about all of his expense claims as well, and this was all getting rather excessive and tedious now. The audience rippled with murmuring approving sounds. One person (a councillor?) even turned around and gave me a sneering look and a 'thumbs down'.

Enough said. I will just say that I have not been inquiring into Cllr Stansfeld's expenses (but I won't be contacting my lawyers about this accusation). But, assuming that Cllr Stansfeld was correct (and not just engaging in flim flam) I wonder who has been? Ho hum.

I would record that Tim did a fine job and answered the questions put to him well.

Finally, a friend sitting next to me, who is not deeply embedded in this business but had come along out of curiosity and wishing to be an informed voter turned to me at the end and said something like:

The Conservative candidate thinks he has it in the bag, doesn't he?

I could only smile ruefully and agree with her. But I wonder...

UPDATE: The case of the missing sentence

Just got around to reading the CV from Cllr Stansfeld that was included in the pack. I note that his CV on the web which includes the sentence "He is currently Chairman of a small company that has interests in water systems for agriculture and energy recovery systems for industry" was curiously absent from the CV circulated last night. Other than that (but I have not checked it word for word) the two CVs seems the same.

Why is that?

One usually constructs a CV to make oneself sound good. Does this sentence not sound so good any more, Cllr Stansfeld?

Froth & candyfloss

Several posts below have highlighted the froth and candyfloss that appears to be hallmark of the manifesto promises of most of the Tory PCC candidates (with a few notable exceptions). So I thought I would spend sometime this afternoon trawling through all 41 Tory candidates and extract the words that relate to their manifesto promises. (This is not the same as what was done by Jon Collins of the Police Foundation the other day who I think took all their words.)

So the wordle below is a subset of the words used and I have sought to be reasonable with this, but this is my edit. Some of their promises are far from clear and/or embedded with lots of (to use a technical term) guff. I have also extracted the words police, policing, crime and criminal as I thought this would highlight the content of the promises made better.

Anyway, here is the wordle, which you can also find here:

And here are a few choice statements I have lifted. The Tory candidates in various places promise to:

• Agree priorities and targets with the Chief Constable 
• Appoint a new Chief Constable
• Be prepared to use all means, including innovative solutions, to reduce crime and create efficiencies.
• Break the cycle of re-offending through a better criminal justice system
• Crack down on Anti-Social Behaviour
• Demand joined-up thinking 
• Getting a better deal for tax payers
• Protect vulnerable people 
• Reinforce good citizenship at an early stage
• Etc

...all such warm and cuddly words...

Only one person mentions privatisation, and even then only in quotation marks...

Suffolk: the policy free zone

I am in the middle of doing some research into what Tory candidates have been putting on the government's 'choose my PCC' website. And I came across this one from their candidate for Suffolk. Please read this link and tell me:

a) do you now have any idea in what direction this man will take Suffolk policing or crime related areas if he is elected?
b) the link between hop production and local crime & disorder
c) the relevance of his hobbies which include "tutored tasting sessions of Real Ale and Single Malt Scotch Whisky and growing English scented roses" (remember there is a strict word limit on these statements)

That said, the idea of 'tutored' drinking sessions does sound rather good. Suffolk has some delicious beers and alcoholic beverages as the police of Ipswich well know... at 3am when the nightclubs close....

But how is all this an election statement? Really?!?!

UPDATE

And to be fair, the Northamptonshire Tory candidate is much more detailed - although he needs to make sure his spell checker is set to the UK not the USA in the future...

More apolitical claptrap

Having fun with this - here is another analysis of a Tory set of manifesto 'promises' from the site of Julie Iles (Surrey PCC candidate for the Conservative Party):

Julie will bring a fresh approach as a Commissoner who is available to the people in Surrey so that they really can have their say in local policing priorities. (fresh approach - you mean better that the previous commissoner - sic)

Someone who will make communities safer by cutting crime. (seems that they have all been told to say this somewhere)

Her priorities are:

Making Surrey an even safer place to live - We have a relatively low crime rate here when compared to other areas. Let's keep it that way, any crime is too much crime. (noble aim, but not really anything new)

Getting a better deal for the tax payer - With business experience from a career outside of politics Julie has the skills to ensure delivery of an effective police force making best use of our resources and funding. (except that is not really her role - when will these PCC candidates understand it will not be their job to manage!)

Catching more criminals / improving detection rates - It cannot be right that with a low crime rate Surrey police are in the bottom two of all forces when measured on our rate of solving crime. (Um yes it can be as there is less crime to solve... maybe?) Julie will support our police force in improving the fight against crime so that we catch more criminals here (as opposed to the other PCC candidates who will not be supporting the police to do likewise)

Ensuring the justice system delivers for victims - Our police must be visible to the public, available when they are needed and provide an excellent service for the victims of crime. (Huh? This is just more stating the bloomin' obvious. Motherhood and apple pie statements)

Cracking down on anti social and alcohol fuelled behaviour - Fourteen percent of local people have personally experienced or witnessed drink related anti-social behaviour in the last twelve months. I will work with all local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour and cut crime. (and the other candidates will not? Come on Julie, these are not priorities! This is your job description!)

I cannot claim to have reviewed all the Tory campaign priorities but I think I am detecting a trend here: Be bland and anodyne, say lots of worthy and warm sounding things that all the candidates would probably say, hope that people will vote for you because you are wearing a blue rosette and don't mention the 'O' word (outsourcing) or indeed anything controversial like cuts or council tax precepts.

This is frankly sham democracy. For all those people who did not want politics in policing, they only have to look at the Tory manifestos: no politics there! Except, I predict, they will not govern in this way. We all know they will be political if they get elected. How will they be political? They will ensure that cuts are implemented without any resistance. They will look forward to outsourcing increasing numbers of police functions. They will squeeze the third sector while pretending they support the 'Big Society'. But they are not telling you any of this.

This is a dishonest campaigning by the Tories. But then did we expect anything else?

Bleeting into oblivion (UPDATED)

My wife sometimes shakes her head in despair at me and tells me I have been bleeting (her word) far too much. When I explain that blogging and tweeting is just something that I have to do... she looks even more worried.

Anyway, in an idle moment today, I have been flitting around looking at other blogs that are focused on the PCC elections and came across this piece on Bernard Rix's site which analyses PCC rankings for both twitter and facebook:

NOTES: Tim Ashton’s follower numbers were 229 last week. I have drawn his attention to the growth in numbers, and am awaiting his comment on any background to this.

Mr Ashton's twitter following has now grown to 5744, putting him second only to John Prescott in the twitter ranking list. This Tory candidate for Lancashire was ranked at 72 last week.

This is curious. This is not a dissimilar pattern to our friend in Lincolnshire, who has stepped down (see below) but who also experienced a dramatic rise in twitter followers a few weeks ago.

So I am looking forward to any information forthcoming from him or Bernard Rix. Could we back in the territory of buying twitter followers (is there a Grant someone on Ebay?)

But meanwhile, let's spend a moment reviewing Mr Ashton's 'Ten Point Plan'

1. Replace all the targets that have been imposed on the police with one target: to cut crime! (so all that stupid stuff about public order, reassurance, anti social behaviour etc. can stop under Mr Ashton's leadership. And I assume the Home Office will comply by removing all checks on Lancashire Police performance the HMIC won't need to stop by either...)
2. Protect frontline policing and retain the number of Police & Community Support Officers (PCSOs). (So may we assume that he doesn't plan on retaining the numbers of police officers? What is he protecting frontline policing from? The back office, the Home Secretary or himself?)
3. Get more police on our streets by cutting the red tape that keeps them behind a desk. (Give me a break! This is such a tired old line. If the Lancs public fall for this one they will deserve to have Mr Ashton as their PCC. How is he, as PCC, going to do this exactly given that arguably the major cause of 'red tape' is applying due process to case preparation required by the CPS. How many Government task forces have tried to tackle this one? Go Mrs May, I dare you to initiate another one!)
4. Put more resources into tackling drug dealers and organised crime across Lancashire. (So where will you take these resources from?)
5. Root out waste in the Police Force to make sure more of your money is spent on policing in your area. (Collision with National Crime Agency here we come....!)
6. Zero tolerance of all crime and make sure more offenders are brought to justice. (Yeah, right, I have heard that the Lancashire police are bit soft on criminals and are letting lots of them off with a few choice words like Dixon of Dock Green)
7. Toughen up community sentences so there is no more ‘softly softly’ when it comes to punishment. (Um... is that in the set of powers a PCC has?)
8. Encourage greater use of the latest technology by the police to cut crime and catch more criminals. (So that's just 'encourage' then, not fund?) 
9. Focus road safety activity on the areas where there are the most accidents. (Again, is that in the brief of the PCC? I thought road safety was a County Council responsibility...?)
10.Involve the public in setting priorities for policing in their communities including rural areas. (Isn't that what PCCs are meant to be all about? I am surprised there isn't an eleventh point about his promise to set a financially viable precept.)

So it seems as if here is another Tory PCC candidate who is committed to Shakespeare: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. This seems to be general approach being taken by Conservative candidates in this election. But if you know better and can point me towards a Tory candidate who is comprehensively

a) making promises that he/she can actually keep
b) matching the manifesto to the job description (in the law)
c) avoiding platitudes and statements of the bloomin' obvious

... then please do!

UPDATE

Just been on the Fake Follower Check site. First I checked my own account:

So that is a 'woo hoo!'

And then I checked @Tim4LancsPCC out of idle curiosity. Here is the result:

Not so woo hoo then...

Anthony Stansfeld: a compilation of his greatest hits

As the Government website containing all the candidate statements went live today, I thought I would put together a compilation of all my blog posts about Cllr Stansfeld's 'CV' into one place. I have put it right at the bottom of the blog as it is quite long.

If you want to access it, here is the link.

You can follow my research and thinking in one easy to read place and perhaps deduce, like me, that the facts just do not add up...

See all collected posts about this matter in one place by clicking this link

Choose my PCC: and they're off!

The ChoosemyPCC site is now live and the six candidates have their details up for the voters of Thames Valley to browse. Here are all the links:

Patience Tayo Awe
Barry Cooper
Geoff Howard
John Orrell Howson
Anthony Stansfeld
Tim Starkey

You will want to read for yourselves and (no surprises) I am backing Tim of course. But do read all the others. I would comment:

Patience says "Without proper checks and balances our policing could leave a legacy of resentment and frustration. We experienced it last year, lost lives and properties." She appears to be saying that by not having PCCs during the riots this led to policing leaving a legacy of resentment except a) London already had a defacto PCC last year b) is she seriously suggesting that police officers left a legacy of resentment? Police officers, please note.

Barry says that his aim is to "provide a democratic voice for the law-abiding majority, giving them a say in how they are policed and what priorities the force adopts in pursuit of the goal of cutting crime and increasing the safety of our communities" but then does not say what his priorities are. What are people voting for Barry, apart from UKIP flimflam?

Geoff is a "former Captain of Slough Rugby Club and now a Vice-Chairman". He will be the "voice of the people" and "accountable to the public at all times". Expect a free phone 365/24/7 number soon...

John will be all things to all people. He favours "bobbies on the beat", listening to "young people" and ensuring "value for money". Although he does not say it, he is probably also in favour of kittens, toasted tea cakes and bracing walks in the fresh air.

Anthony says that if "you want more information about Anthony’s pledges please visit www.anthonystansfeld.org.uk" I did. There isn't. Another statement that does not add up....

Tim says "no to privatisation of key police functions – outsourcing street patrols to firms like G4S is not the answer!" of which there is no mention by any of the others. Interesting...

But it is your vote.... please cast it wisely!

Finally! Some 'pledges' from Anthony Stansfeld

On Cllr Stansfeld's website, a modicum of a manifesto has been published. At last. This is what he says:

If elected as the Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner Anthony pledges:

• To maintain the balance between urban and rural policing.
• To ensure that the Police budget is targeted effectively.
• To protect vulnerable people.
• To ensure the Police act firmly and fairly, using good judgement to deal with the public politely, gaining their respect and acting with integrity.

That is it by the way apart from some blurb about him (again) at the top of the page which I can't be bothered to reproduce.

So. What do you think then? Are you persuaded? Let's unpick these pledges one by one.

First though: pledge - really? You mean like this pledge?

Aside from showing a degree of naivety in using this phrase (perhaps he really isn't a politician after all - maybe that is the hidden message...), he cannot actually make at least two of these pledges as they are not in his power:

To protect vulnerable people. How will the PCC do that exactly? Does the police service not do this already? Can he define 'vulnerable'? What does he mean by 'protect'? From whom? The PCC? Will he protect police service staff who are vulnerable to privatisation?

To ensure the Police act firmly and fairly, using good judgement to deal with the public politely, gaining their respect and acting with integrity. Again how exactly? Is he saying that they don't act with good judgement at the moment? And how is he going to 'ensure' they act with integrity? Really, how is he going to 'ensure' this?

To ensure that the Police budget is targeted effectively. Well, we all want that do we not? But then he kind of shoots himself in the foot by the previous pledge: To maintain the balance between urban and rural policing. So he is maintaining something he wants to target effectively. How does that work exactly? Sounds to me that he wants his cake and eat it.

So we have been waiting some time for even the hint of a manifesto from Cllr Stansfeld. And we get these four pledges all at the same time. I think I will go back to waiting for a bus...

Oops! I almost forgot his first pledge: To reduce crime and drive up detection rates.

Wow! Can someone get me a feather to knock me down with: the laser focused preciseness of this pledge is frankly overwhelming. So that is FIVE pledges.... I am comforted now... he really does know what he will be doing...