Meet the Commissioner (Channel 4: Cutting Edge)

I don't think anyone can doubt Ann Barnes' deep and personal commitment to the people of Kent, her clear aim to meet their need for effective police services and indeed her respect for the officers and staff who provide those services. I would take a calculated guess, that lying on the editing suite's floor are several more minutes of Ann talking about her desire for everyone in Kent to feel and be safe.

But last night's programme was a slow train wreck. Actually, it wasn't even that slow: within the first sixty seconds we were shown Ann attempting to describe 'the onion' and the layers of policing tasks & priorities. The comparisons made to 'The Office' and 'Twenty Twelve' began here.

My friend and colleague, Bernard Rix has already blogged about the programme and I commend you to read what he says. As an advocate of the PCC structure and one who has met many PCCs, he says authoritatively that last night's programme is not representative of the fine work being done by other PCCs around the country. And I also agree with him that the programme does not represent the good work being done by Ann Barnes herself. But, as I tweeted after watching the programme late last night:

I will be interested to see whether any other PCC dares to put themselves forward for a similar documentary... Or perhaps, as I also tweeted:

I wonder what other PCCs will say about last night's programme. Bob Jones (West Mids PCC) has said he will and Matthew Ellis (Staffs PCC) already has:

So what are the lessons to be learnt from all this? Here are mine:

• Democracy, public accountability and good governance are too precious to be left in the hands of a single individual.
• Democratic decisions need proper scrutiny: if they remain in place, Police & Crime Panels need to be reformed urgently
• Good governance needs commitment, passion, listening and strong ethical values... but careful analysis, circumspection and raw nous are also essential
• PCCs will be in place for at least 2 more years: they are the only game in town when it comes to the governance of policing and wider crime (CJS) services. They deserve professional respect and support. (But, and both Bernard and I spotted this, they do not need deference of the kinds that appeared to be on display in last night's programme)
• Flip charts are dangerous pieces of equipment, to be used only by the properly trained...

Ann Barnes released a statement yesterday before the programme was screened. You can read it here and I ask that you do. I suspect that she will be driven to release further statements in coming days. These will deserve reading too.

There is some brilliant recovery to perform.

UKIP: Some questions

Dear UKIP

I have some questions for which I would be grateful for some answers. Many thanks.

1) If the UK votes to exit the EU in a future referendum, how long do you think it will take to negotiate bilateral agreements on (say) trade, healthcare for domiciled Brits (etc.) with all the countries with which we currently enjoy such agreements on the basis of our shared EU membership?

2) How proportionate is this length of time matched with the resources available in the FCO, BIS & other Whitehall departments, do you think? Will you be campaigning to stop cutting those departments over the next few years?

3) What promises can you make to people living in Spain and elsewhere in the EU about what will happen to them eventually, and in the interregnum period while these agreements are being negotiated? (Ditto businesses trading with the rest of the EU?)

4) Post exit, as it were, what will happen to all the EU citizens currently living and working in the UK? Will they have to go back to the EU country from which they came? What happens if they are a child who was born in this country but whose parents are (say) Polish?

5) Where on your website, is all this explained, in detail?

______________

This is the third of my recent trilogy of blogs about UKIP. You can read the other two here: a deconstruction of the UKIP local government manifesto and a short story about love, hate and love again. 

UPDATE 1147 310514: Good article by David Arronovitch in the Times yesterday:

Romanian eyes: a short story about love, hate and love again.

It was ten years ago that I met my wife. I was sitting in a small music bar in Camden, gradually warming a pint, and I noticed this woman sitting in the pew next to mine. Her brown eyes drew me in although I struggled not to stare. She was listening intently to the folk rock band that was playing that night. The sparkle in her eyes suggested that there was someone special to her in the group. Strangely emboldened with this belief, I struck up a conversation:

“It’s good music isn’t it?” I said.

She turned, smiled and paused. I was able to look into her eyes properly for the first time. Unfashionably, I almost swooned.

“Yeah. I see them all the time.”

She was about my age. Her accent was something Eastern European. She turned back to look at the band. I felt I had to find out:

“So, do you know someone on the band?”

“Yes. That’s my twin brother playing the flute.”

“He’s good!” I said. “Do you play, too?” feeling both relieved and excited that my initial suspicion was correct but in a way that now opened a door.

“I used to but now I am too busy with my studies. You?”

A question to me. Great! This could turn into a conversation, I thought.

“Nah. I am like Simon Cowell: good at spotting talent but devoid of it myself!”

She smiled and looked at me again. This time it was a more searching look. I felt I was being appraised. We spent the rest of the evening chatting: me finding out about her life and her about mine. It was easy. She was charming. And I got to look into her eyes: lots.

She was studying psychology at Birkbeck, with an aim to become a clinical psychologist. Her brother spent his time odd jobbing and playing music. Her Mum was an accountant, and her Father had died a few years previous. Some kind of industrial accident. They had all moved over to the UK a few months ago so that her Mum could build a new business, providing help and advice to other small businesses. They were Romanian.

We exchanged numbers at the end of the evening. I was debating how long I should leave it before calling her. I left it two days. Too long, as it turned out.

When I called, an older woman picked up the phone.

“Hallo? This is Peter. Is that Cosmina..?”

“No. This is her mother. Who are you?”

I swallowed a small lump of fear and explained. And then I heard what had happened. The night after we had met, Comina had been watching her brother playing in another bar and there had been a fight afterwards. Something about her brother making eyes at a young woman, all Romanians being rapists etc etc etc… Comina had rushed in to break up the fight.

She ended up losing one of her beautiful eyes.

I went to see her in hospital. It was our first date. I returned the next day, and the next, and the next.

And that was ten years ago. We now live in Bucharest, in a cosy flat in the suburbs. Comina works as a clinical psychologist helping people come through traumas. She says that her range of brightly coloured eye patches help people to open up. I manage a music bar in the city where her brother often plays. I have made it my personal aim, to make my bar the one with the most love, the most laughter and the best music in Bucharest. We have two twin girls aged 3 and half. They have their mother’s eyes.

I don’t go back to the UK very much these days. Ever since the referendum and the Tory/UKIP coalition: for me, there is just a little too much hate and spite lurking on street corners. Even though the result of the referendum was (just) a vote to stay in the EU, this hasn’t stopped the government finding ever more contrived ways to make life hard for people: especially migrants.

So I have chosen love and live a rich life in Romania. I know I am rich because I am happy with what I have: a good family, good friends and much laughter.

And my daughters’ smiling eyes.

From ad hominem to ad consilium

I think it would be fair to say that most hacks and commentators have, in recent weeks and months, focused their fire on the wacky, weird and risible words, as well as the sexist, homophobic and racist comments of UKIP's men and women. Who could forget the letter attributing the poor weather to the introduction of equal marriage for example, or indeed the need to clean behind fridges?

And I would be the first to hold up my hands and admit to doing some of this as well. But on the basis of the European parliamentary and local government election results, this strategy may well not have worked as well as perhaps we had hoped. As in football, have we been 'playing the man not the ball'? 

A couple of days ago, I tweeted:

Unsurprisingly, this provoked some strong responses from some but received the affirmation of several people too. So in this spirit, I thought I would do a bit of analysis of UKIP's 'Local Manifesto' (which I have downloaded before they remove it from their website... so email me if this has happened since I wrote this blog).

Page one: says immigration is "crippling local services". Of course no evidence is provided to back up this claim. And, local authorities, can do little about immigration since that policy is in the hands of the national and European governance structures. But 'tick' to blaming others for the problem of schools being over subscribed or the extra pressures on social care services (which, of course, would fold without workers from the EU and elsewhere...)

Page two: we get "An Open Door To Crime - 28,000 Romanians are held for crimes in London. Romanians come second on the list of foreign nationals arrested by police for serious crimes. This includes 142 rapes, 10 murders, 666 sex crimes, 303 robberies, 1370 burglaries, 2902 acts of violence" Do you see what I mean by 'hate'? Now I don't know how accurate these figures are (Based on the rowing back that Nigel Farage had to do last week on similar claims) - probably not very. But just imagine for a moment, instead of the word 'Romanians', the word 'Jews' was inserted... Do you see where I am coming from here..? Now for all I know, in London, Jews have committed 142 rapes too. Or 14, or 1000 or whatever... The chances are that you could take any group defined by nationality, ethnicity, sexuality (etc.) and throw similar figures around: but they are all meaningless unless comparisons are made and proportionality clarified. And did you notice the one glaring omission in this statement: there is no timescale. For all we know these figures could relate to the last six months, 2 years or even the last century. This is all classic 'blame the other' stuff that also lies at the heart of racism and fascism.

Page three: there is a letter from Mr Farage. I could spend a week analysing this! But I won't. But I will highlight just one sentence: "If we want to keep the National Health Service free, prevent developers from concreting over the countryside and protect our pensioners and our young people seeking work, something must be done." This is from a party that has/had/will have again maybe a policy on charging people to go and see their GP. Their policy pages are pretty short on detail at the moment, but there is previous... And as for the rest of the sentence, who doesn't want to protect pensioners (patronising though that sounds...!) And the classic "something must be done!" Absolutely! I will always vote for a party that believes in doing something... anything... something!!!

Page four: (although I am losing the will to live here...) has several "we believe" statements such as "Council tax should be as low as possible" and "We need more police on the streets, cracking down on crime and anti-social behaviour". Um... is there any party that doesn't believe in this? "Right brothers and sisters, I move we raise council tax to the highest possible level because that will surely get us re-elected next May. Who's with me?"... Oh and UKIP opposes "excessive housing development, wind farms and HS2". But not fracking strangley. So page four is full of vague, vacuous, claptrap.

Page five: begins with the stunning words "If you vote UKIP - you get UKIP". Huh?! There was I thinking that if I vote UKIP I get the Socialist Party of Great Britain. Thanks for the helpful clarification. The page goes on "We refuse to be politically driven or ‘politically correct’ and will always stand up for local people and common sense, rather than toeing the party line". Not politically driven... what??!!! This is in the middle of a manifesto that more or less links everything back to EU membership. And we know about political correctness, I can appreciate the honesty of this statement. And they won't toe the party line... so UKIP is not a party? If that is the case, should they not all be standing as independents?

Seriously about to give up now... but I will press on just a little bit more... (Pages 6 & 7 are a poster)

Page eight: highlights six priorities. 1) Local referendums. For these to have the effect they want, this would require parliamentary legislation. Therefore this is an impossible priority for UKIP to implement even if they ran a council. 2) Regain control over development. Again they are making a promise here that a local authority could not deliver on. Another impossible priority. 3) Prioritising services for local people. You know what I cam going to say here: another impossible priority without primary legislation. 4) Moving government closer to the people. This is one they could actually do. But it will cost money and they are already committed to keeping council tax as low as possible... 5) Spending our money at home. Doesn't this sound so good: using that word 'home' is so convincing isn't it? Except of course, local government does not have the power to change the budgets for overseas development and EU membership. Another impossible priority. And finally 6) Fighting crime and anti-social behaviour. Strangely local authorities have very influence on sentencing or deportation policies... But tackling 'nuisance neighbours' can be addressed by local councils in the few council houses that they have left. But again, show me any political party that does not want to address anti social behaviour. The trick is knowing how to do this effectively... nothing on this is here. So in sum, if these are UKIP's six priorities for local government, they need to get a GCSE in constitutional politics so that they know the limits for what councils can do.

Page nine: is immortalised by the introductory statement "UKIP Councillors are expected to follow the best interests of their constituents". Hang on, who or what is expecting them to do this? I thought they weren't a party which toed the party line... etc? As for the rest of the page, I am not sure where to start. How about "Mending potholes should take priority over council vanity schemes." That sounds good doesn't it! If I had written this page I would have added "Providing care for vulnerable people should take priority over cushions for councillors, because in my day, councillors were expected to live in a hole in t'road and eat gravel for breakfast!"  ["Luxury!"]

Page ten: has "some of the ways" UKIP will save you money. This includes, surprisingly "Leave the EU and save £55 million every day". And also closing "unnecessary central government departments and quangos". That is good, I do worry that I sometimes vote for parties that want to open unnecessary departments and quangos. And UKIP councillors will sell "unused state-owned property and assets". I can imagine the conversations now in the UKIP run local authority:"Eh, Cllr Smith, you know that luxury hotel on the edge of town that the council owns and nobody uses anymore, why don't we sell it off and reduce council tax?" "Cracking idea Cllr Jones! And while we are about it, we could put that big building next to the Thames in Westminster on the market as well!" "But we don't own it..." "So what, it is state owned?!"

Page eleven: is a membership application form. This includes the following:

It is not a very big box for the Honours, I tend to think... And should there have been a 'cash paid' box as well? Just asking...

Page twelve: has smiling photographs of people who have switched their allegiance to UKIP. Nice.

I could have written more, but aside from all the humour above, this manifesto shows a deep ignorance of the powers that local government actually has, it is full of vague promises that are little more than claptrap and, most disturbingly, edges into the darkness of blame and hate. I will end by saying that isn't it interesting that London, the most diverse part of the UK with probably more EU migrants than anywhere else in the country, showed the least support for UKIP. There is a big lesson here...

UPDATE 180714 | 1031: Just came across this excellent piece of research: Crime and Immigration: Evidence from Large Immigrant Waves by Brian Bell, Stephen Machin and Francesco Fasani. Their abstract says:

This paper examines the relationship between immigration and crime in a setting where large migration flows of fer an opportunity to carefully appraise whether the populist view that immigrants cause crime is borne out by rigorous evidence. We consider possible crime effects from two large waves of immigration that recently occurred in the UK. The first of these was the late 1990s/early 2000s wave of asylum seekers, and the second the large inflow of workers from EU accession countries that took place from 2004. A simple economics of crime model, when dovetailed with facts about the relative labour market position of these migrant groups, suggests net returns to criminal activity are likely to be very different for the two waves. In fact, we show that the first wave led to a small rise in property crime, whilst the second wave had no such impact. There was no observable effect on violent crime for either wave. Nor were immigrant arrest rates different to natives. Evidence from victimization data also suggests that the changes in crime rates during the immigrant waves cannot be ascribed to crimes against immigrants. Overall, our findings suggest that focusing on the limited labour market opportunities of asylum seekers could have beneficial effects on crime rates.

So we await the policy announcements from UKIP - aren't they meant to be publishing a 'manifesto' this summer?

UPDATE 211014 | 1022: Just blogged again: 10 questions for UKIP. Just when are they going to come clean with all their policies?

Dashed hopes

A while back, my attention was drawn to this new initiative by the Thames Valley PCC: their new Complaints, Integrity and Ethics Panel.

The purpose of the Panel is to provide an independent forum that monitors and encourages constructive challenge over the way complaints and integrity and ethics issues are handled by the Force and overseen by the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), In so doing, this will help ensure that Thames Valley Police has clear ethical standards and aspires to, and achieves, the highest levels of integrity and professional standards of service delivery

And I note that they have held their first meeting, where they talked about:

• Terms of Reference
• Introduction to Complaints Handling which included a summary of the complaints process and procedures followed by the Force’s Professional Standards Department (PSD). Reference was also made to the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) and the programme of  training for police officers and staff around the Code of Ethics. Members will be attending an Integrity and Ethics Training course in June.
• A brief introduction to the new Code of Ethics
• A summary of the PSD Complaints and Misconduct Monitoring Report from April 2013 to the end of March 2014

So when I first noticed this panel happening (with these terms of reference), I thought I would like to know more about where each of the panel members was coming from. So I wrote this FoI inquiry:

I note that the PCC has established this panel. I look forward to hearing more as their work proceeds. This is a bold innovation and one that I support. 

You may have clocked my recent small piece of research into ethical practice and Thames Valley was one of only two (the other being Cleveland) police forces that were making any substantive progress on developing ethical practice in officers and staff.

In the meantime whilst I note their biographies on the website, please may I have a copy of the full Register / declaration of Interests of each of these people. I imagine this will have been one of their earliest tasks given the ethical leadership role that they are fulfilling.

Many thanks

I received this reply back a few days ago:

Thank you for your FOI request “please may I have a copy of the full Register / declaration of Interests of each of these people” 

ANSWER: The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Thames Valley holds no relevant information with regards to this request.

So, the TV PCC has established a new body to bolster the ethical governance of the police service, but apart from some selective mini bios about each person, we have almost no transparency about their interests? 

Does this seem right or indeed ethical to you?

The PCC does have an opportunity to correct this. Maybe he is doing so as I write. I await to see...

Some news just catches you...

Breaking news this afternoon is that Chief Constable Nick Gargan has been suspended by the Avon & Somerset PCC and the IPCC have begun an investigation. According the BBC news article this is following "serious allegations" of inappropriate behaviour towards female officers. Naturally I will not comment on the case.

It is interesting to note this tweet from CC Gargan himself, a couple of hours before:

The link in his tweet, takes you this story in the Bristol Post.

The article begins with these words:

If Chief Constable Nick Gargan fancies a break from policing, perhaps comedy could be where a new career lies.

It is difficult to know what to say in moments like this...

Code of ethics published

The College of Policing has published its revised Code of Ethics. You can access it from here. I have not yet had a chance to read the whole document, but overall it does seem to be an improvement on the earlier draft that went out for consultation.

Regular readers will know that I submitted a few comments towards the end of the consultation period in November last year. With a quick check through, it would seem that several of my comments have been taken on board, which is great.

Of course, it is now a question of doing something with this new code... Based on my recent research, the large majority of police services have got a significant task ahead of them.

Crime trends: asking the right questions

The news is awash this morning with headline news that upwards of a fifth of crime reported to the police is not being recorded. You can see various stories here from the HMIC summary & copy of interim report (yes it's not the final one), the BBC headline story (Police not recording a fifth of crimes, watchdog report suggests) and other stories: Daily Telegraph, & Daily Mail.

But hang on, have we not been here before? There is this headline in the Mirror: Police forces fail to probe millions of offences fully, this one in the Guardian: Police crime figures being manipulated, admits chief inspector and even the Morning Star: Critics claim crime statistics revamp will mislead the public. These last three stories are dated 23/1/14, 18/12/13 & 31/12/13 respectively.

And then of course there is the two years of near hell that whistleblower James Patrick has been through over his blogging about the same matter.

And of course, this is really not a new phenomenon when Huw Evans is able to dig up the Audit Commission's report on the same matter from ten years ago. (Link is here). And if you follow Bernard Rix's retweet, you will see a whole discussion about when exactly the police began (as some would call it) "fiddling the stats".

So where do we go from here (again)? Bernard poses the challenge that the HMIC may not be asking the right questions. Instead of asking "to what extent can police recorded crime information be trusted?", Bernard suggests that the question ought to be "What are the cost-effective ways of improving the recording of police crime information?" as this question will lead to establishing what should now be done. (I tend to agree that the HMIC has probably already addressed its own question since the answer, quoting Paul Daniels, is 'not a lot'!)

I would say, let's start this from a different angle. I received an email from the Office of National Statistics the other day (23 April) in reply to my last email to them. I must say, that I am seriously impressed since my last email was not one requiring an answer but nevertheless a dedicated civil servant at the ONS felt moved to reply, 3 months later. (Thank you Meghan Elkin!) I have blogged about this before where I explain that I am investigating what resources would be required to use the National Crime Survey at the level of local police forces (so that PCCs could be held to proper account among other objectives). Here is her reply in full:

Firstly, I apologise for the delay in sending a reply to you. 

We’ve considered how we might respond to your query that would be of most help to you. I hope the examples below are helpful in not only demonstrating the size of the sample required, but also how this varies across crime types. England and Wales figures used in the examples can be found in the published appendix tables: www.ons.gov.uk/ons/publications/re-reference-tables.html?edition=tcm%3A77-314526 

Vehicle related theft has a relatively high prevalence rate. Vehicle related theft – England and Wales Year ending March 2012 5.4% Year ending March 2013 4.6%

The 0.9 percentage point decrease was statistically significant for England and Wales. To observe this 0.9 percentage point change as being statistically significant requires a sample size of over 8,000. The current sample size for a police force area is around 650. 

Or alternatively, with a sample size of 650, we would need to observe a 2.6 percentage point decrease (from 5.4%) for the change to be significant. This is similar to the decrease observed between 2006/07 and 2012/13 for England and Wales as a whole. 

Burglary has a much lower prevalence rate. Burglary – England and Wales Year ending March 2012 2.4% Year ending March 2013 2.1%

The 0.3 percentage point decrease was statistically significant for England and Wales. To observe this 0.3 percentage point change as being statistically significant requires a sample size of around 27,000. 

I hope these examples are helpful in demonstrating that large sample sizes are required in order to trust changes in prevalence rates of crime as being true changes. The required increase would require more resources that would be available for ONS to produce figures with the same level of certainty at Police Force Area level as our current England and Wales figures. 

Kind regards, Meghan

I am no statistician, but I think there is more to debate here about what other alternative methods their might be to have reliable data on experienced crime (as opposed to recorded crime) in a locality. But that is for another email and blog (or two!)

So, we seem stuck between a rock and hard place: where we cannot really trust the calibration of recorded crime statistics (locally or nationally) and the more reliable ONS National Crime Survey can only operate at a national level which is a very long way away from operational and indeed strategic decision making at the sharp end of policing. The National Crime Survey may be fine for national politicians to claim that crime is going down (although there are problems with what crime even the national survey doesn't count such as business crime) but it is of no use at the local area level. 

So how will the public judge whether a PCC has done well or not on the single most important measure of what the police do (according to the Home Secretary)? Put simply: they cannot. Although I proposed some metrics by which PCCs can be assessed a while back. 

This is such a convoluted topic: I have even touched upon the whole issue of performance measurement and how targets twist & deform policing (and all other public services), even when the reasons for such targets are completely understandable (see this old article by Bob Jones, West Midlands PCC)

So, I will finish here (as other jobs are calling this May morning) with a response to Bernard's challenge to come up with a better question than his on what the HMIC ought to be investigating. Here is my suggestion that not only the HMIC should be looking into, but also the College of Policing, the Association of PCCs and indeed every police management team in the country:

How can we more reliably measure the impact of policing activities on the levels of crime in our communities so that we increasingly know what works and what does not?

And there is far more to say, of course...! When is this Groundhog Day due to end?!

It is collaboration, Tim, but not as you want it?

A small squall is brewing off the East coast as Norfolk & Suffolk police services and commissioners seek to resolve their differences over establishing a joint control room. The Ipswich Star reports on a event happening tomorrow when the two pairs of PCCs and Chiefs are having a summit meeting at Norfolk police HQ to sort out the matter. This has also been reported on by Sally Chidzoy from the BBC in recent weeks.

It is an old chestnut when it comes to collaboration: even when only two forces are involved, it is likely that one will benefit less than the other. Indeed the 'benefit' might be negligible or even negative. And if each collaboration project is seen in isolation, then each project faces failure if the 'losing' partner takes their ball home.

The question is, as it has always been with collaboration, can the players be strategic and see that where one initiative might be balanced in favour of one partner, the next initiative may well favour the other. But it is a tough call, especially when those making the decisions fear they may face the wrath of the voting public in a couple of years time.

From speaking to Tim Passmore last week at the Grant Thornton event, I know that he is committed to finding efficiencies through collaboration. (Although when I wickedly suggested that having one PCC for both Suffolk & Norfolk could immediately save the taxpayer a good deal of money, he was not so wild about that idea!) The article linked above, outlines some of the real risks identified by the Suffolk Chief Constable. The question is whether the four players involved can agree on a way forward that is best for all of the people in the two counties collectively - not just separately.

And if they cannot: what does this have to say about the future of collaboration under PCC governance? The eyes of many people, not just those of Suffolk & Norfolk, are on Wymondham tomorrow.

And I cannot leave this topic without linking it to calls to reform the whole 43 force structure after the next election. It is difficult to see, no matter who is voted into power, that the pressure to amalgamate resources will not inevitably push towards having fewer strategic policing bodies. 

UPDATE 1324 | 010514: It would appear that the decision to form a joint control room has been called off. The news story "Norfolk/Suffolk police control room merger plan scrapped" suggests that it was Mr Passmore (Suffolk PCC) who pulled the plug while Mr Bett (Norfolk PCC) is quoted as saying "I accept today's decision and now we move on. I am disappointed but not surprised". Hmmm.

Chief Constable Zero: the Secret PCC gets tough

After a very long and careful consideration of all the issues and consequences over a couple of macchiatos in Costa's last Saturday, I have decided to put the Chief Constable onto a zero hours contract.

He was not wild about the idea when I told him yesterday at our regular Friday afternoon chat but I told him my mind was made up. As the custodian of public money, I explained in straight forward language that I had no option: a zero hours contract would provide better value for money to the taxpayer. He went off grumbling about being a member of the Tax Payers Alliance too & finding out the location of the ANPR cameras near Douglas Carswell's house. But I have not heard from him since. He hasn't even been sanctimoniously live tweeting from his regular Saturday morning bike ride: trying to put the rest of us still in bed to shame. There has been only a single selfie tweet of him next to the Tolpuddle Martyrs memorial (or is that person part of the memorial?)

That was a long bike ride. He will be stiff in the morning! But I am not changing my mind. I mean, do you know that ACPO officers have a minimum holiday entitlement not a maximum one?! They swan off to meetings in London all the time, get invited to afternoon tea & cup cakes with the Bishop, read professional journals (cover to cover!) as if they need to still learn about how to be a police officer and parade around with their scrambled egg laden collars at councillor cocktail soirées.

Well, I have had enough of this and so have all the local tax payers. From now if he wants to "improoove his professional practice", or "networkkk with key stakeholders" or "influence Home Office strategyyy" (whatever that is when it's at home...), he can do it in his own bloomin' time. I am not paying for it any more. Zero hours (on a rolling 5 month contract to avoid any shenanigans that Red Ed wants to deploy) here we come.

From now on, all that I will contract him to do will be:

• Disciplining and controlling his rather bonkers set of Deputy & Assistant Chief Constables
• Pinning medals & commendations on police officers who actually go out onto the street to arrest the pond life that upset my ageing mother and her friends
• Talking to the media and covering my back: making sure that everyone knows he is 110% behind my police & crime plan

And that is about it. Everything else he has been doing is just fluffy flim-flam that the hard working taxpayer should not be subsidising.

_________________________________________________

The Secret PCC Diary until now:

• Collected diary - days one to ten
• Day 50
• Day 68
• Appointing the new Chief Constable
• PCCs must show people its worth voting (interview with the secret PCC)
• Fields of ponies: the Secret PCC does Income Generation!
• By the pricking of my thumbs, something radical this way comes!
• Too big for their pixie boots: the Secret PCC makes a speech to his Police & Crime Panel
• Witchcraft: the Secret PCC & managing awkward Chiefs
• Social media policy (Secret Diary of a PCC)
• The magic of Brasso (Secret diary of a PCC)
• The 'not giving a floating duck' problem (Secret Diary of a PCC)
• Secret PCC: A LibDem MP considers applying for Direct Entry

Legal disclaimer: just in case you thought this series of secret PCC blogs is based upon a real person or persons: it isn't. It really isn't. Any similarity to a living PCC is entirely coincidental.

The 'Truncheon of Doom' & what price justice?

You may well have heard of the 'Barnet Graph of Doom'

This basically shows that Barnet council is going to run out of money at round about the end of this decade when sources of income dry up (DCLG goes into deep hibernation) and demand for social care & children's services just keep rising.

Birmingham not to be outdone has created the 'Jaws of Doom'

I believe there is also a 'Scissors of Doom' graph which seeks to predict when the NHS will run out of money / healthcare consumes all of public spending / Government introduces the Logan's Run option to reduce demand (I jest of course...) I cannot find it on the net: perhaps it is censored as being even scarier than senior politicians in swimming trunks...

But this got me wondering: do we have (or need) a 'Truncheon of Doom': a graph which shows when predicted resources available for the police & criminal justice services are exceeded by demand for said services? Could such a graph be constructed? How elastic is demand for policing? Or will money always be found for sufficient courts and prisons to lock people up and deliver justice?

Evidence based practice has now migrated across from healthcare into the probation and police services (although there is still a long way to go), a trend I was predicting back at the turn of the century. In a similar way, do we now need more Criminal Justice Economics (like Health Economics)? 

The University of York seems to be ploughing quite a lonely furrow. But is there could be much more... do we need more academic research to look at costs and benefits of various approaches to policing, probation and other parts of the CJS? When does the 'Truncheon of Doom' close in?

But let me make a further link (and I am just exploring this really, prompted by part of Peter Neyroud's input last night)...

Retributional Justice is about right & wrong, about punishment, guilt and fair process. In many ways the victim is as much a subject of the justice process as the offender. The benefits to the victim are not weighed against the cost of the judicial intervention. Thank Heavens, I here you say, justice should have no price because it has intrinsic and supreme value... Do you believe that?

Whereas, on the other hand, one model of Restorative Justice sees crime as a harm to be healed, and therefore the process of justice becomes the method by which that healing occurs. And so if that healing can occur without due (and hugely costly) legal process but instead with some other intervention / RJ based desistance method perhaps: then is that a better outcome for the individuals involved and indeed for society at large? (Because it could be far more cost effective...)

As I say, I don't know. I want to think about this some more. But what do you think? 

Preventing domestic homicide

Prompted by a piece of research (which I now cannot track down - help!**) which showed (I think) that many people carrying out domestic homicides were not on any kind of high risk register, I have just written to the FoI departments of all the UK domestic police services with the following request: 

I am now carrying out a small piece of research into the preventability of domestic homicide. The numbers of women being killed by former or current partners seems to be a constant average of two per week. Based on some scant data, I have formed the hypothesis that many of the men committing these very serious crimes are not known to the police before hand – or on any kind of ‘watch’ list / risk register. And I need your help to find out if there is any basis to my hypothesis. Consequently, I would be most grateful if you could answer the following questions:

1. How many domestic homicides has your force dealt with over the last five years? A total figure is fine, or if you wish, break it down year by year. In this context, I am defining a ‘domestic homicide’ as being when a person is found guilty of killing a partner/former – murder or manslaughter. I am excluding other tragic cases of where parents kill themselves and/or their children etc.

2. How many of these persons (the ones convicted of killing) had any kind of prior criminal record ranging from low level crime to more serious acts of violence, cautions to imprisonment etc?

3. And how many of these people were on any kind of watch list / high risk assessment register / or similar?

Please note that if you cannot answer one of these questions (due to a FoI exclusion etc), please do still answer the other questions that you can. I would greatly appreciate avoiding the email tennis of you writing back to me to say that since Q2 (say) cannot be answered, you cannot answer Q1 & Q3 unless I want to alter my inquiry etc. Many thanks. And please forgive the round robin email: it is just so much quicker for me.

Any feedback on refining these questions would be much appreciated, if you think that would help me investigate the hypothesis more effectively. 

Thank you for all your help.

I will keep you posted on the responses.

Any feedback to me? 

**UPDATE 1321 | 250414: My plea has been answered by Peter Neyroud (thank you!). Here is a link to power point slides (NB they will download on clicking) of research by CC Sara Thornton: Does prior history of domestic violence predict domestic murder or other serious assaults? Very helpful piece of research which deserves to be read and acted upon.

A treat of a day

Today has been a great day: brimming with wonderful people of all ages, some scrunchy new ideas and excellent food. So before I toddle off to the land of nod, I just want to thank a few people...

• My new & old twitter pals who send me gems of information, inspiration and feedback: as a lone freelance codger, it is great to be connected!
• The year 13/14 year old students of The Radcliffe School, Milton Keynes whom I met this morning at a Worktree workshop designed to help prepare them for the world of work. Your faces sparkled with enthusiasm, good questions and skillful listening.
• The staff of Currys in Oxford, and Staples, Hobbycraft & Homebase in Reading: thanks for trying to help me obtain some high temperature ceramic glue and other items.
• The organising team behind the Annual Supper of the Reading Criminal Justice Association: you put on a well planned and most enjoyable event this evening. Thanks to Roy for inviting me as a guest.
• The crew at The Kitchen at Reading College who put on such a fine spread: excellent service and delicious food all round!

• The people on my table I got to chat with: Moira, Janet and Anne with conversation that spanned Chrome TV boxes, dentist hand washing, Freudian narcissism and housing association plumber working conditions!
• And to my old friend and colleague, Peter Neyroud who squeezed about as many stimulating ideas and policy proposals into his all too short after dinner speech (time was limited) as there are currants in a Christmas pudding. (Watch this space for more blogs on some of the themes that Peter raised tonight.)

I live a privileged life for which I am grateful.

A dramatic drop in violent crime?

I attended the annual Grant Thornton Police Conference, hosted by Paul Grady, yesterday with Bernard Rix. The event for Police & Crime Panels that Bernard and I ran last autumn got a good plug as did the thematic investigation into PCC transparency that CoPaCC carried out with sponsorship from GT. I am most grateful for the invitation to yesterday's event: it was a good day to learn more about the auditing of police constabularies and OPCCs, as well as network with a number of key people (including Tim Passmore, PCC for Suffolk).

During the day, one person highlighted the headline in yesterday's Times: Shock drop in violent crime and noted that the police were not mentioned at all as being a contributory factor. This prompted discussion as to whether the police are always the best at promoting their successes (which was a theme picked up on by Bernard later in the day).

However, the story is far more subtle than that. Two blogs I have spotted this morning: Is the rising cost of alcohol behind falling violent crime? and Behind the headlines: Is it really a ‘shock’ drop in violent crime? both converge and say 1) there has been a long term drop in violent crime and 2) it is all very complex and the causes of this drop are difficult to tease out.

As with most pop sociology and psychology newspaper stories it is always worth going back to the original research (rather than stick with the journalists spin). Here it is. And here is a quote:

Reasons for decreases in violence nationally are not clear, but are likely to be multi-factorial and complex. These could include changes in structural factors such as unemployment, poverty and inequality in addition to public health and criminal justice interventions to prevent violence locally and more widely. In addition, since 2008, affordability of alcohol has decreased, the real price of alcohol in both the on-trade and off-trade has increased and UK alcohol consumption levels have decreased from 10.8 (in 2008) to 10 litres per capita (in 2011).10, 11  These factors may partly explain the falls in serious violence in England and Wales. 

The alcohol factor could be a significant one. Although it is worth noting that the general trend has been towards alcohol becoming increasingly affordable over the period of the long term decline of violence.

But let us repeat: Reasons for decreases in violence nationally are not clear, but are likely to be multi-factorial and complex.

So beware glib conclusions that this is all down to the last four years of the coalition government's policies on crime and policing! It is a good trend but it is bigger than one government in one country!

Update 1337|240414: My good twitter pal & news scooper @SteveBachelder highlighted this article this morning: Yes, lead poisoning could really be a cause of violent crime by George Monbiot. To quote:

At first it seemed preposterous. The hypothesis was so exotic that I laughed. The rise and fall of violent crime during the second half of the 20th century and first years of the 21st were caused, it proposed, not by changes in policing or imprisonment, single parenthood, recession, crack cocaine or the legalisation of abortion, but mainly by … lead...

Update 1509|240414: And for an another view, this article is worth a read as well: Is violence in decline? by Richard Garside:

In general, those who hold forth confidently about the falls in violence are white, middle-aged, middle class males who, for a number of reasons - economic, social, demographic to name three - are far less likely to be victims of violence than they were as teenagers. Unsurprisingly they are inclined to believe official data that reinforces their own experiences.

What is sauce for the Aylesbury duck....?

In recent weeks I have been in an email debate with a fellow councillor as to whether an article on 20mph zones should appear in the next edition of Buckingham Town Matters. (I chair the sub committee which has editorial control of our quarterly newsletter.) The other councillor considered that the issue was not Town Council policy and therefore should not appear in the magazine. My view was that this is subject of great importance (recently raised at the Aylesbury Vale Transport Users Group meeting in the town) and one about which we can and indeed should provoke a debate among the people of Buckingham. The sub committee met yesterday and resolved democratically to keep the article in... so watch this space for it.

Meanwhile, imagine my interest last night as I drove through Aylesbury, the county town of Buckinghamshire, to note that they have a 20mph zone in their town centre. Look, here is the map that was part of the County Council's own consultation a few years back:

I assume this is what became the official zone (although happy to be corrected).

So: should the sauce for the Aylesbury duck be also sauce for the Buckingham swan..?

Please let me know what you think. I am interested in your views... especially if you live in or visit Buckingham on a regular basis. Thanks.

The 'hidden' crime wave

At a meeting in Buckinghamshire County Council last night, I caught the tail end of a discussion on 'Doorstep Crime' and I noted one big fact: 90% of doorstep crime is not reported. I found this shocking and really rather worrying. And I got to thinking: why? And what can be done about increasing the reporting rate so that the criminals involved can be tracked down?

First: what is doorstep crime? Here is a leaflet prepared by Thames Valley Police. At the very least, doorstep crime includes distraction burglars and rogue traders. But what else? It seems to me that doorstep crime should also include:

• Mis-selling of financial products 
• Junk post that persuades you to part with cash using a combination of small print and extravagant claims
• Scam emails & mendacious telephone marketing
• All manner of home 'improvements' that actually are nothing of the sort!
• Etc...

And let me make it clear: I have been victims of all of the above (except distraction burglary, fortunately) and I have not reported many of them. Moreover, I do not regard myself as a vulnerable or particularly gullible person (although others might disagree!)

So why do people like me (or not like me), not report such crimes? Here are a few reasons why I think this might be the case:

• It was such a trivial amount of money, not something to bother the police / trading standards with
• Even if I do, they will never catch the blighters...
• And it was my own silly fault to have been conned
• And I would rather not let the world know about my stupidity
• And that duster salesman did look rather sad
• Perhaps I could win the next prize draw: you just never know
• But that financial adviser said he was independent, and he is such a nice man and has a lovely family...
• Maybe that external wall covering will look better as it ages..

And so on.... and on.

At risk of being accused of making a daft and potentially inflammatory comparison: is this a bit like domestic violence or child abuse?

Stay with me: I am not saying the consequences in terms of harm bear any comparison in almost all cases (although an older person being conned out of a lifetime's savings is an appalling criminal act with devastating for the person concerned) but the psychology of not reporting the crime may have some correlations. And how we should, as a society react, could also be similar: in other words we need to talk about #everydaycrime more... and without shame. We need to get it out from behind closed doors (as it were). Do we not?

So what #everydaycrime have you been subject to, that you have never bothered to report before?

Victim Support: the volunteer question

I am beginning to see advertisements for "Support Services to Victims of Crime" in various places, inviting organisations to express an interest in tendering for these new contracts that will be let by the Police & Crime Commissioners. Of course, we have known this policy was coming for some while.

There is a handy guide available from the Ministry of Justice (download from here). And many other resources too:

• Have you got what it takes
• Evidence and practice review of support for victims and outcome measurement
• Improving the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime
• Local commissioning of victims’ services

But where do volunteers fit into all of this?

On the national Victim Support website, it says:

Our charity is built on our volunteers. Without them we couldn't continue to do all the positive work for victims and witnesses of crime in England and Wales.Volunteers do much of our direct support of victims and witnesses, as well as helping us in so many other ways such as raising money, and promoting our work. We always need new volunteers throughout England and Wales so please get in touch, we’d value your support. We have around 5,600 people volunteering for us. 

The word volunteer is mentioned once in MoJ guidance (referenced above). The Home Office document "have you got what it takes'... does not have one use of the word volunteer. In the "Evidence and Practice Review of support for victims and outcome measurement", volunteers get more of a mention in terms of the need to make sure that volunteers like staff are properly trained and supported. For example:

Table 4.1 Indicators of quality in victim support service provision Governance and management - Defined organisational aims and objectives
- Standardised processes and procedures across the organisation
- Service accountable to Board and/or managers, and individual staff/volunteers accountable to an assigned line manager
- Monitoring of financial performance, including cost effectiveness
Staff/volunteer recruitment, training and support - Staff/volunteers have the qualifications and/or have received the training necessary to fulfil their role
- Staff/volunteers exhibit the necessary personal qualities and attributes to support victims professionally and sensitively
- Clinical supervision for staff/volunteers providing therapy to victims
- Support mechanisms in place for staff/volunteers - Opportunities for learning and development 

So it would seem that volunteers both are and are not central to the provision of effective support for victims. From what little I know of victim support, it relies on its volunteers to provide empathy, capacity and capability to its role.

But for me the big question is this: will volunteers want to work for a profit making company? 

As regular readers know, I work as volunteer for ChildLine which is part of the NSPCC, a notable and large charity. If it was ChildLine Ltd where some of the fruits of my voluntary labour were ending up in the pockets of the hedgefunds (or whatever) who were shareholders... I think I might find another organisation to volunteer for.

Would you?

Will the tender documents from commercial organisations (or perhaps consortia involving such companies), soon to be landing with a thud on the desks of PCCs, include statements about how volunteers will be part of the team...? How can they be sure that volunteers will want to work for them?

Macavity ICT Inc.

Technology is often seen as a panacea solution to all our problems, especially ones relating to obtaining greater value for money provision of public services.

People reading this blog, probably know that ICT has something of a chequered history in the police services: there are stories of large investments leading to negligible improvements in outcomes or (of course) systems that fail to join up not only across from one police service to another but even within a single force. So what has happened to the police ICT company that was being established some months ago (the offspring of PETO/NPIA/HomeOffice etc) which was designed to tackle all these and other problems...?

I note that Damian Green did not mention the new Police ICT company in his speech to the Police Innovation Fund bidders' event earlier this month. The page dedicated to describing the policy to establish an ICT company was last updated in March last year. And if you search on > "Police ICT company" news < most of the results date back 2 or 3 years.

Hansard (via theyworkforyou) is not much more use. The most recent note (12/2/14) that I can find is in a contribution to a debate on "Housing Benefit and Universal Credit in the Social Housing Sector (Regular Payments): Police" where David Ruffley said:

In addition, Ministers have created something that was long overdue and which the Labour party had 13 years to create; a police ICT company that has offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy police technology in a joined-up way, so that we do not have 42 forces doing their own thing and wasting money, with interoperability being limited and the power of bulk purchasing completely ignored.

Which is fine as an assertion but where & when exactly is this "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy police technology in a joined-up way" happening?

And in June last year, Tom Watson asked "the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans she has to make the Police ICT company subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000". The Police Minister, Damian Green replied:

The Police ICT company as it is currently constructed is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The Act applies to “public authorities”, which includes “publicly-owned companies” as defined in section 6. The Police ICT company does not fall within the relevant definition because it is not wholly owned either by the Crown, or any other body which is subject to the Act.

I am reminded of Macavity...

Macavity's a Mystery Cat: he's called the Hidden Paw—
For he's the master criminal who can defy the Law.
He's the bafflement of Scotland Yard, the Flying Squad's despair:
For when they reach the scene of crime—Macavity's not there!

So what is happening to the Police ICT Company?

Does anyone know?

37 women... and counting

37 women in the UK have been killed through suspected male violence from January to March 2014. 37 women in 90 days is one woman every 2.4 days.

Thus begins the list of women who have been killed so far in 2014. These details are being compiled by Karen Ingala Smith on her excellent blog which you can find here. Her blog has lists for last year, the year before and many other useful resources.

I am highlighting her work on this for two key reasons today:

1. This is a national crime matter that cannot and must not be ignored. Whilst the HMIC made the headlines last week with its recent report of its inspections into the response of the police to domestic violence, I remain fearful that, still, not enough resources are being put into reducing this level of violent crime. (My blog on the HMIC report is below, here)
2. I am wondering how many of these crimes could have been predicted and therefore (possibly) prevented. The HMIC report emphasised the importance of risk assessment. The question I have is whether risk assessment is working and reducing the incidence of harmful outcomes, including fatalities. 

The HMIC overall report says:

HMIC found that while forces are beginning to think about how to improve the management of the risk presented by perpetrators of domestic abuse, there is still significant work to be done to translate their plans into a reality. 

So in response, I ask the following questions:

• How many of the murderers of the victims on Karen Ingala Smith's blog were known to the police before hand? 
• How many were known to the probation service?
• How many (known to either) might have hitherto been assessed to be low risk until they suddenly committed murder? 
• How will the fragmentation of the probation service into commissioners, low risk (commercial) probation services and high risk National Probation Service (see my blog about this here) have an impact? (Let me take a guess...)
• Where is all the information about the learning from Domestic Homicide Reviews been collated & applied? (Given that the HMIC report states "Forces and other local partners raised the concern of limited opportunities to share the learning from DHRs")?

Helpfully, the Home Office did publish Domestic Homicide Reviews: Common Themes Identifed as Lessons to be Learned last year. How is this being followed up? 

But... have the outcomes improved? (Are we seeing fewer domestic homicides?)

It's a form of addiction: do I need help?

I don't why I do it. It is probably a form of addiction. I feel less healthy as a result, certainly more tired. It can interfere with my work. If I am being honest, it is a compulsion I have suffered from for quite a long time, probably since my early teens. I suppose I could get treatment for it, but I have never even gone looking for such....

I really must stop getting involved in pointless debates with Tory tweeters (it used to be school chums when I was younger). Especially late at night. I genuinely don't know why I do it. I know deep down, they are not going to be persuaded. They probably know the same. Perhaps we are all trying to 'win on points' as there are rarely any knockout 'facts' that destroy the others' arguments (other than the ones we believe there are). And even a points win is pretty subjective. Actually no, it is totally subjective.

But why do I do this?

Perhaps I am kidding myself that this is giving me crucial insight into the Tory mind that will help me persuade others, whose political beliefs are less solid, of the worthiness of my left wing arguments for a fairer, better future (where everyone has ambitions and dreams, and the resources to achieve those ambitions and dreams).

Certainly last night's debate showed me very clearly (at least I think it did...) that the Tories will be fighting the next election on the basis of the economy. Their arguments will be that over the last five years that they have delivered more jobs, rising wages, better economic management (far better than Labour/Gordon Brown who sold off the gold and plunged the country in huge deficit yada yada) and so if you want to vote for a more prosperous future for all, vote Tory! (And also, you cannot trust Labour to run the NHS, look at the devastation in Wales where Labour runs the health service: people are suffering poor care. lots! And, look: even Labour MP, Ann Clwyd agrees!) The sources cited for all these 'facts' are numerous newspaper articles (by a wholly neutral, objective and independent press/media, of course) and references to dense ONS spreadsheets.

But I knew this anyway. I did not need last night's online debate to remind me that Tories will always argue on the basis of economics. And even now I am carrying on with the debate in my head, wishing, oh so wishing, I could locate some killer objective statistic that would decimate their arguments. Of course, I cannot. Not because they are right, but because it is all a darn sight more complicated than this. The tools of political warfare are headlines, sound bites and over simplifications. The actuality is always far more complicated than that. If I could locate a 'knockout stat' somewhere, no doubt my opponent would find another one to counter. And I would find another and so on. Then, suddenly, it's 3am in the morning.

So, I am making a resolution today. (And I can do this: my 5:2FO diet appears to be working - it is fruit only on 2 days a week and I am lighter than I was six weeks ago.) The next time I edge into such a online debate, I will challenge myself (and the others involved) to find out what we can agree on. And then leave it at that.

I will let you know how I get on.  

With thanks to @eredarP who gave me the link to this. I would acknowledge the author if I knew who it was... Brilliant!