The magic of Brasso (Secret diary of a PCC)

Well, here we are, just over a year in post and I am still here! I think that is some achievement.

Some of my close friends said I wouldn’t make it. In various ways they suggested that my straight talking and no nonsense approach to governance would get me into hot water. Well – hah! to them!

OK, I have gone through a couple more chief constables than I expected and the irritating Police & Crime Panel are becoming even more damn irritating and increasing my intake of aspirin… But they haven’t got rid of me yet (in fact they can’t unless I break the law). I think my chain of office is beginning to work its magic. People are respecting me more, especially when I get the Brasso out before a big meeting or press briefing.

And yes, there were some others who thought that my congenital ‘foot in mouth’ syndrome (inherited from my dear departed Brigadier Father) would get me into trouble with the local and national media. Well I have shown them too! I have been more than able to say stupid things and… get away with it! I do think the chain of office is helping there as well.

So what is the real secret (beyond the Brasso)? Well, I think I have been fortunate to stay mostly invisible. Even if I say daft things, I can be fairly sure that nobody really cares. Looking around the country, I can see I am in good company with some other PCCs still doing pretty silly things themselves and getting away with it. The fact is, most people still don’t know that we really exist, and even if they do know, they have no idea what we actually do…

If you try not to make too much of it and keep your head below the parapet (unlike those idiot PCCs who are organising blethering summits, earnest ‘listening’ public engagement events and other new public management paraphenalia), it is rather a peachy job. There are lots of jollies up in London, the Home Secretary has a rather good stock of fancy biscuits and then there’s the occasional chance to stroke a police horse’s head.

And on top of this, of course, I have the government protecting my back: PCCs can do no ill. We are officially immune. The Home Sec is never going to admit that a fair few of the elected PCCs would probably be no better at running a bank than the erstwhile chairman of the Coop. We are, quite simply, the apples of her eye. Indeed, I fully expect a future Tory government to give me even more responsibility. I cannot wait: there will be even more meetings in London to go to where I can consume good biscuits and take in a show at the end of the day (on expenses of course).

So time for a glass of wine to toast my first year of office… May there be many more!

_________________________________________________

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)

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.

Big questions over new PCC resource formula

A few months ago, the Thames Valley PCC announced that he was changing the way that the funds for local Community Safety Partnerships under his control would be allocated. His original proposal was that the formula for deciding on the allocation should broadly reflect the resource allocation formula used by the constabulary to allocate police resources. His proposals were not met with, shall we say, much enthusiasm...

His original formula was this:

Population (2011 census) - 30%
All recorded crime - 35%
All incidents (excluding admin & crime) - 35%

I have criticised this formula before (see link here) for being essentially self reinforcing.

Anyway, the proposal would have meant some serious reductions in funding for the major (and higher crime) cities of Thames Valley with the 'winners' being the more rural (and lower crime) areas. (Although everyone is about to lose because the funding had gone down.)

Now to be fair, Mr Stansfeld did consult on this formula and it would appear did listen. As a new formula has been proposed in a paper produced by the PCC for the recent PCP meeting.

Population (2011 census) - 20%
Recorded crime (per 1000 population) - 20%
Number of ASB incidents - 20%
Home location of offenders and suspects - 20%
Number of opiat* & crack cocaine users per 1000 population - 20%

(*I thought it was opiate by the way)

So what are the implications of this? Here is a table which summarises:

	2013/14			2014/15
	CSF	YOT	Total	Allocation	Variation
Bracknell	126,025	42,976	169,001	154,800	-14,201	-8.40%
Bucks CC	413,051	121,466	534,517	501,717	-32,800	-6.14%
Milton Keynes	213,929	92,643	306,572	297,669	-8,903	-2.90%
Oxon CC	746,160	145,000	891,160	789,316	-101,844	-11.43%
Reading	572,047	52,498	624,545	520,749	-103,796	-16.62%
Slough	371,619	34,954	406,573	365,862	-40,711	-10.01%
West Berkshire	134,341	43,424	177,765	177,290	-475	-0.27%
Windsor & Maidenhead	147,005	22,389	169,394	169,394	0	0.00%
Wokingham	100,516	18,014	118,530	118,530	0	0.00%
TVP	615,000		615,000	657,000	42,000	6.83%
Total	3,439,693	573,364	4,013,057	3,752,326	-260,731	-6.50%

So the three biggest losers are Reading, Slough & Oxon. While the areas least affected are Wokingham, Windsor & Maidenhead and (the area where Mr Stansfeld lives and is still a local councillor) West Berkshire.

So the areas which include some of the highest crime areas and most deprived wards are losing the most. Is this what Mr Stansfeld meant by prioritising rural crime?

But I will hold back from suggesting that this formula is an extraordinarily biased one designed to benefit the areas where Mr Stansfeld has his main political support. However, I do think there are some big problems with it:

• Firstly it assumes that all this data is accessible and reliable. Apart from the census data, the other four (to greater and lesser degrees) may have large fictional elements
• After all the brouhaha about the reliability of recorded crime data in this last week, should this really feature at all? 
• While drug use undoubtedly is a major factor in crime & community safety, what about alcohol? My suspicion is that alcohol use is a much bigger factor. Why does this not feature in the same way?
• And why home location? Surely what matters is where the crimes etc are committed?
• And what model of crime prevention is this formula based upon? I would like to know - it seems a million miles away from (say) the work of Ekblom (links here and here) or Problem Solving Policing or even Problem Orientated Policing... 
• Could there be some perverse incentives to report more ASB (for example)?

I know the amounts of money are not mega bucks but any resource allocation needs to be done carefully and strategically. For me there are very many unanswered questions concerning this new formula.

What do you think?

The Norfolk PCC & Expenses

It now emerges that Stephen Bett has paid back the £3k he had taken in expenses for travelling from his home work base to (what most people would regard as his real) work base in Wymondham. BBC Stories are here and then here (a few hours later). I was interviewed to be part of the story and appeared as part of the story on the BBC East's version of the Sunday Politics Show.

I know I have posted these links already, but what many people do not know is the full text of what I initially wrote up for the BBC. I reprint this below, as I sent it on Wednesday evening (i.e. before it was revealed that Mr Bett was paying back the money):

Frankly I am very surprised to be talking about this issue. I have worked with Stephen Bett: I know him to be a very experienced politician (a former senior Conservative Norfolk County Councillor and Chairman of the Police Authority) and he is very committed to getting good value for the money for the tax payer. I also assumed that the story about my PCC, Thames Valley’s Anthony Stansfeld and his interesting past travel expenses arrangements would have reached the ears of the Norfolk PCC. But it would appear not. Surprising, as I say.

This new case of, shall we call it ‘flexible working’, raises several issues for me:

• Perhaps the Home Secretary, or even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, might feel moved to write to all PCCs to remind them of their responsibilities towards the tax paying public? 
• The Norfolk Police & Crime Panel might wish to reflect upon their scrutiny role: how did things get to this stage on their watch? (Indeed I wonder whether other panels around the country might now be looking a little more closely at the expenses claims of their PCCs & Deputy PCCs in the future)
• The Norfolk Office for the Police & Crime Commissioner is currently advertising for a new Treasurer. Perhaps it might be helpful to accelerate that appointment?
• And PCCs, perhaps some more than most, might find it valuable to spend a little more time comparing their practice with other PCCs around the country: learning about good practice to focus upon and what practices to avoid…

I set this down for the record.

Also for the record,  I would add:

• I hope the Police & Crime Panel is now going to investigate this matter fully and will also be inquiring into the Deputy PCC's expenses as well (it is unclear from public records as to whether she has been doing similar things to the PCC or not).
• Paying back the money is not the end of the matter, as far as I am concerned. An independent audit at the very least is required if not an IPCC investigation.
• I remain curious about the advice that Mr Bett says he received and I have submitted an FoI inquiry to uncover this documented advice.

But I repeat again, I am genuinely surprised that a politician of Mr Bett's calibre should have got into this state of affairs. 

PCCs: A year is a long time in politics

As we approach the anniversary of the first (and last?) election of Police & Crime Commissioners, many people have felt moved to do some kind of one year on review.

For example (at least two regional versions - maybe more) of the Sunday politics show featured pieces on PCCs. I am featured on the East of England one at about 42 minutes in, talking about the Norfolk PCC and his expenses.

And then of course, we have the excellent work that my colleague Bernard Rix has been doing on auditing transparency across the 41 PCCs & London Mayor. You can access his report (first of several) here.

The irrepressible Bob Jones, the West Midlands PCC has produced his 'school report' and gives the PCC model of governance an overall 4 out of 10. You can read the original report here and BBC story of it here.

And then I must add, the Home Secretary gave her 'warts and all' review a few days ago. Here is the link to her speech.

In about half an hour's time, I am going to be contributing my thoughts to Radio Northampton on the ups and downs of having PCCs over the last year. So here are my glads and sads about the introduction of PCCs a year ago.

I am glad that: the governance of policing is now explicitly political since it always has been and always will be: this vital arm of the state needs to be properly considered in wide public discourse. However (and you may not believe me when I say this...) I am sad that: this has become overly party political and dare I say tribal. I take my share of responsibility in this, but I am not the only one! But was this inevitable?

I am glad that: there are now powerful elected figureheads who can challenge the government and particularly the Home & Justice Secretaries on the impact of some of the Government's policies (e.g. the privatisation of probation services) on crime and community safety. I am sad that: the Government still refuses to listen to these considered opinions and favours its own ideology over evidence & professional advice.

I am glad that: a good number of independent PCCs were elected since they are offering a body of pluralist thought and challenge outside the party structures. I did not expect any to be elected at all though in hindsight I can see why they were. I am sad that: this has resulted in sniping and less supportive partnership/scrutiny from some of the Police & Crime Panels who are dominated by the political party that expected to win in those areas.

I am glad that: PCCs are currently grappling with the challenges of developing their first real independent budget & plan for 2014/15 (since they mostly inherited the one in place at the moment). This will test their ability to translate their manifesto promises into real policies and investments in new kinds of policing. I am sad that: many PCCs will default to 'off the shelf' budgets or worse install budgetary mechanisms that favour their political allies rather than what is needed to tackle the underlying causes of crime and anti-social behaviour.

I am glad that: many PCCs are experimenting with novel approaches to community listening, service innovation and bold public service leadership. I am sad that: some PCCs are still failing to put their heads above the parapet and take some risks.

I am glad that: some PCCs 'get' evidence based practice and are prepared to invest in research to bolster even more effectiveness in policing. I am sad that: some, perhaps even most, PCCs have yet to really grasp what evidence based policing is all about and are relying too much upon rhetoric, 'received wisdom' and 'approved' practices (with some having no solid research base).

I am glad that: many PCCs have made a point of going out to listen to their publics and communities, and are listening (really listening) to them. I am sad that: many PCCs waited far too long to start doing this and some, even now, are hardly out of the blocks when it comes to real community engagement.

I am glad that: most PCCs are conducted their affairs with due probity and good governance. I am sad that: several PCCs have achieved a high profile not for making a difference to policing but for practicing some, shall we say, 'less that wise' approaches to expenses, travel and staff appointments. Indeed I am angry that some PCCs have tarnished the reputation of politicians yet again, following the MP expenses scandals of a few years back. (But then again, some MPs are still doing this too!)

I am glad that: many Police and Crime Panels have begun to recognise the range of powers that they have, both hard (statutory) and soft (just asking some rather fine questions etc) powers. I am sad that: some other PCPs seem to have been caught napping and have done little to hold their PCC to account beyond the bare minimum.

I am glad that: the debate is growing about how to reform this governance model post the next general election. I am sad that: there are some who appear so invested in the model that they cannot see that it requires some significant tweaking.

Kamikaze politics

The story has broke this morning of the expenses being claimed by Stephen Bett, Norfolk PCC for his travel between his home and the place where all his staff & Chief Constable are. You can read the story here.

As you might expect given that I am quoted in the piece, I have known about this story for a couple of days. Indeed Sally Chidzoy interviewed me on camera yesterday. Some of this footage will appear on Sunday in the BBC's 'Politics Show East'. (I have not seen the piece yet).

Since the story is still in the making, I will hold back from saying much about it on this blog.

However, I would just note that here we are, almost a year since PCCs were first elected and this is one of the breaking news stories... Another breaking story will soon be emerging from my colleague Bernard Rix who has been conducting a transparency audit of PCCs over the last few weeks. I have not seen the results, but I predict the news is unlikely to be 'peachy'!

Meanwhile the Home Secretary felt moved to report 'warts and all' on the progress of PCCs to a conference organised by Policy Exchange. You can read her speech here. Perhaps I should not be surprised, but I think this speech was peppered with partisan comments. And as for the warts, I think they were more mere pimples. (But hey, since when did Government ministers give full and unexpurgated accounts of what has happened..?)

But in many ways Ms May is correct, the new governance structure is work in progress and I suspect that a second term Conservative (single or coalition) Government would institute some reforms of the current arrangements. (Interestingly, I have been told that it was the Lib Dems who inserted the role of the Police & Crime Panels. Had it a pure Tory Government, we would have PCCs without any check or balance other than the ballot box every four years... I leave you to ponder on that.)

But I quote the Home Secretary here:

"Overall, police and crime commissioners are driving significant changes in policing – they are better known and more easily approached than the police authorities they replaced they are delivering innovative reforms, and many are making use of their powers to hold their forces to account. To be frank, this is not the case across the board, and in some cases, police and crime commissioners have been responsible for mistakes and errors of judgement – some possibly serious." (my added bold)

We learnt about some of these in Thames Valley a few months ago. The people of Norfolk are waking up this morning to some more, it would appear...

UPDATE (1749 08113): BBC News has just released this story: Norfolk PCC Stephen Bett pays back more than £3,000 in expenses.

Stephen Bett, PCC for Norfolk, claimed for 70 trips from his home to the offices in Wymondham. He said he had done nothing wrong but would return the money so that the controversy would not "tarnish the reputation of policing in Norfolk". He said he would no longer claim mileage for those journeys.

I will write more on this next week. For me the question now is: will the controversy end here, as I assume Mr Bett hopes it will?

A solid honest copper

I know Chief Constable Andy Parker. He is a measured, serious and deeply committed police officer with many years of experience. I highly recommend that you read his letter (dated 4 November) to Rt. Hon. Keith Vaz.

You can access it here, on page 241.

He ends his letter with these words:

I would ask that you publicly correct the misleading statements that have been made, which I consider damaging to my reputation and that of the force. 

Throughout this matter I have endeavoured to act with integrity and transparency - I will continue to do so and look forward to your response.

You need to read the letter to understand the power of these words.

For myself, I worry that the whole #Plebgate saga is now turning into an endlessly intricate and baroque maze of 'he said, she said, they said' etc. I used to get angry with journalists, politicians and tweeters offering up opinions that were well short of the facts. Now I am more sanguine. Unless you are wearing three anoraks, you cannot hope to follow the weaving and dancing around this issue.

In the meantime good police officers like Andy are having to spend their time writing letters like the one referenced above. He had to write it of course. But I suspect he would agree there are better uses of his time.

So where do we go from here?

• We await due process of the CPS while it considers the fate of the police officers who were involved in the original incident.
• The fresh IPCC investigation (of questionable legality) into the three Federation Reps who met with Mr Mitchell will roll on 
• And police officers and staff up and down the country will talk on camera with even more circumspection than hitherto

The 90 Minute Towel Rule

I have just come back from a delightful 10 days in Agadir, Morrocco. I highly recommend the RIU Tikida Beach Hotel (although if you are vegetarian: beware! Some of the dishes that you would think were veggie are not! I eventually had the Chef de Cusine giving me a tour of the buffet each evening to point out which dishes I could eat and which I should not!) But overall, lovely staff & great service. Thank you!

But...

There always seems to be a problem with people 'booking' the beds and sun loungers. (Yes: they had real waterproof beds by the pool too...) It seems as if, despite Hotel 'rules' about not booking spaces, people still do with a variety of towels, magazines, footwear and even cuddly toys. And usually this happens from 6am (I am told).

I would not mind quite as much (though I would still mind) if people then actually used the space during the day. But on several occasions I saw 'booked' beds lie empty for whole days aside from the lonely towel 'occupying' them. This is either (at best) absent minded or (at worst) very selfish behaviour by the people concerned. I raised this issue with the Hotel who declared there was little they could do (Why have the rule then?!?!)

However, I have a solution which I am calling the 90 Minute Towel Rule. Here is how it works:

• You spot a desired lounger/bed 'booked' with a towel (or whatever) 
• You photograph it on your mobile / camera (with a date time recorded)
• You wait 90 minutes (in the bar, on another less desirable lounger etc) and, if the item 'securing the booking' has not been disturbed, you photograph it again to prove 90 minutes of absence.
• You then carefully remove said item, place it nearby in safety.
• You then occupy the bed / lounger
• If the owner of said item returns, you say they broke the 90 minute rule and therefore you have made a new claim. 

What do you reckon? Could this work? Should hotels be told? 

And (as often) I am indebted to @SimonJGuilfoyle for his excellent blog about Holiday systems matters which highlighted a similar problem with tables in cafeterias. His blog prompted me to write this one.

Where angels fear to tread...

And so late last night we had some breaking news about the plebgate saga: the Home Affairs Select Committee released a report reviewing their perspective on the Andrew Mitchell / Police Federation meeting and subsequent investigation of the officers for misconduct. Based on recommendations made by the HASC, the IPCC announced that they will conducting a new independent inquiry (or to use the precise wording: redetermine the investigation). Accompanying this is a video broadcast by IPCC Deputy, Deborah Glass.

It probably goes without saying that this matter is getting now eye-poppingly procedural and complex. Like other observers and interested parties, I welcome this fresh look at the evidence and the conduct of the Federation officers involved in the meeting. For example, you can access Bob Jones' (West Mids PCC) statement on the matter here. I do not see this second look as a 'retrial' but an opportunity to quieten the cacophony or ill informed comment and try to get to the bottom of things.

After all this news broke late last night (I was en route back from a wonderful evening at the Albert Hall with the massed Male Voice Choirs of Cornwall), I followed and tweeted on the matter. It did not help that many of automated tweets from the IPCC had broken links...

One tweet that stood out was this one from @NathanConstable with my reply below:

As regular readers know, I have tweeted and blogged on this whole subject recently (a blog that has risen rapidly into the top three most read posts on my blog). And I am mindful of what Nathan advised. And so I am not going to do any analysis (I have not read the HASC report in detail etc.) and I am going to wait for fresh IPCC investigation to report, for the reasons stated above. I have been told that the 4 hour HASC hearing from a couple of weeks ago is riveting, but right now I do not have the time. (Surprisingly, I do have other things to do than blog!)

But.... here are some questions that I would dearly love to have answers to:

1) When are we going to see substantive progress on original investigation into that fateful night? It is my understanding that there is a report sitting in a drawer somewhere in New Scotland Yard. Is this ever going to see the light of (public) day? And if we are waiting (as I think we are) for the misconduct proceedings against the officers to conclude... what timescales are we talking about here?

2) If I were in Andrew Mitchell's shoes (lost a well paid job that I loved and had my reputation tarnished by police officers putting words in my mouth - as I think he would see things) I would be making a complaint! In fact, I would be jumping up and down somewhere outside New Scotland Yard demanding that my complaint is pursued speedily! I have read the reasons Mr Mitchell gave in the meeting with Federations reps as to why he was not making a complaint then. But that was before he felt he had to resign. So my question is: why hasn't Andrew Mitchell made a formal complaint about the officers on the Downing Street gate? 

3) Has sound recording equipment ever been present near the gates or added to the CCTV cameras at the end of Downing Street? If I was PM, I would ensure this functionality was present because you never known when it might come in useful... (I am investigating this matter)

4) Has Mr Mitchell ever documented his full account of what he recalls was said by all parties on that night? We know a lot about what he says he did not say (see the transcript of the meeting with the Fed reps) and something about one of the sentences he did say... but is that all? It may well be, of course. There again, it may not.

5) To refer to the Home Secretary as 'this/that woman' has been deemed to be offensive it would appear. Although I am not entirely sure from my quick read of the HASC report. My question is: if the Home Secretary were a man, would it have been as offensive to say 'that man'? 

6) I think that we now know that the meeting between Mr Mitchell and the three Federation reps was secretly recorded by a Conservative Party press official. Should people meeting with members of the Government (or even merely members of Parliament) now just assume that their words may well be secretly recorded & transcribed? 

7) What is an independent inquiry? 

8) There has been much talk about how this whole episode has damaged the reputation of the police service. Has this much cited shift in public opinion been independently and statistically validly measured and verified? (I have read many tweets from people who say there are much bigger things to be concerned about...)

9) Will the Police Federation be offering more 'media & politician handling' courses for its reps in the future?


And so, I would be most grateful for any answers you have to these questions - there is plenty of space below. And if you wish, do add more questions...

PS: Just spotted this excellent blog post (thanks @DorsetRachel for highlighting) by @anyapalmer http://plebgate-full-account.blogspot.co.uk/ - well worth reading, in my opinion.

General Policing Council

We have:

• General Medical Council
• Nursing & Midwifery Council
• Solicitors Regulation Authority
• General Dental Council
• Health & Care Professions Council
• Architects Registration Board
• Gas Safe Register
• British Acupuncture Council
• ... (I could go on)

Why do we not have such a body as (say)

• General Policing Council

???

Or have I missed finding this somewhere...?

Social media policy (Secret Diary of a PCC)

I am becoming rather concerned that some of the social media accounts of several senior and other officers in the constabulary are becoming just a little too friendly. I know all this fashionable social media baloney is supposed to be all about 'engagement', 'reaching out' to the public and making the police seem human. But I think it could all be going just too damn far. So I have come up with these dozen rules that I expect the Chief Constable to enforce (although the Chief is one of the worst offenders!)

1. No mention to be made concerning musical tastes, pop concerts, contents of pies, drinks drunk, current (or past) relationships and pets (except Labradors).
2. Strictly no pictures of any of the above either
3. Also absolutely no pictures of baby hedgehogs / badgers (especially cute badgers) / foxes (and fox cubs) / kittens / puppies / any animal that could be deemed ‘fluffy’
4. No mentions of any charities as this could be seen to be political, including seeking sponsorship for fun runs / triathlons / moustaches / wearing purple etc
5. Only pictures of landscapes that are based in this county
6. Plenty of mentions of success but no mentions of failure unless they can be blamed on another part of the criminal justice system
7. Absolutely no political, ethical, satirical, Marxist or religious comment (which includes anything ‘funny’)
8. No comments about budgets, strategy, problem solving, evidence based practice, professional conduct or anything else likely to bring the police service into disrepute
9. Trendy hashtags are to be used with extreme caution and absolutely not if they include woollen garments, socio demographic descriptions, cinematic references, One Direction or anything to do with body parts 
10. No language that could offend the PCC or other upstanding people in the world
11. No puns, double entendres or words that could be blamed on a spell checker
12. Retweeting or sharing certain items are OK so long as none of the above rules are broken

I just wish I knew what rules 9 & 12 were all about though....

_________________________________________________

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

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.

PCP Clan gathering

Yesterday, CoPaCC hosted an event focusing on the relationship between Police & Crime Panels and PCCs. It was sponsored by Grant Thornton and the participants were treated to excellent contributions from some notable speakers including Dame Jenny Jones and Mark Reckless. The details are all here of course.

It was a great day!

I will leave the detailed report to CoPaCC Chief Exec Bernard Rix to prepare (my role was to design and facilitate the day). But here are a few reflections on the day as a warm up to that report (coming soon)...

With 60+ people attending, most of whom were PCP members, it was a vibrant clan gathering. If a facilitator's job is sometimes to get people talking... this was not a problem yesterday! War stories were shared, cunning wheezes exchanged and generally lots of good practice was teased out, pulled apart and put back together again.

I almost had to push some people in the direction of the lunch before all the sandwiches went curly!

A huge sense of relief permeated the day - relief that as PCP members they were not alone. There was much talk of how to continue meeting and exchanging ideas. (Watch this space...). Perhaps the event should have been subtitled PCP Members Anonymous!

Anyway, I will stop there. Bernard will reveal more about the content of the day and the ideas that emerged in coming weeks (in between researching the CoPaCC Transparency Audit...)

And I have also written enough blogs for today!

Dead duck or ugly duckling? (Conference)

On Saturday 18 January 2014, The Reading Criminal Justice Association is hosting this conference on Police & Crime Commissioners.

This conference has been convened to investigate what is to do be done about PCCs. Is this system of police governance a dead duck that needs to be quickly buried by an incoming progressive government? Or would new legislation have the power to transform the ugly duckling into an elegant swan?

November 2012 heralded the most significant change to police service leadership in a generation: PCCs were elected to set Police & Crime Plans and hold Chief Constables to account for achieving them. These positions will be up for re-election in May 2016.

The question is now: what next? There will be precious little parliamentary breathing space following the May 2015 general election. The report of the Independent Police Commission, chaired by Sir John Stevens, will be published very soon. It is likely it will have some significant points to make about PCCs.

We look forward to welcoming over 100 police & justice professionals, political activists, public service observers, academics and people who just want a better governance model than what we currently have. This will be an intensely interactive event designed to provoke the maximum debate and ideas for the future. If you want to be part of the progressive debate about how police and justice services need to be shaped and governed in the future, this is an event you cannot afford to miss.

Location:
Quaker Meeting House, 2 Church Street, Reading, Berkshire, RG1 2SB
Times:
10 – 4 
Fee:
£15 (£10 RCJA members & unwaged) Price includes light buffet lunch and coffee

Agenda:

09.45 Arrival, refreshments, greeting and networking
10.15 Welcome from the sponsors of the day: Dr Françoise Richardson  (Chair, RCJA)
10.25 Overview of the day: Roy Bailey (RCJA) & Jon Harvey (Facilitator, activist & blogger)

Lightning presentations
10.35 Bob Jones: PCC for West Midlands

• How to bend, twist & improve the existing model: future practice and practical limitations

10.50 Dorothy Thornhill: Mayor of Watford

• Rubber toothed crocodiles and what scrutiny is really required

11.05 John Hayward-Cripps: Locality Director South, Victim Support

• Optimising the role of the third sector in any future governance model

11.20 Peter Neyroud: Academic, former Chief Constable & member of the Independent Police Commission

• Building a new form of public accountability & robust governance for the future

11.35 Q&A
11.50 Break

12.00 Open Space: Delegates will have the opportunity to shape the agenda for the remainder of the day through suggesting questions to address, topics to discuss and ideas to develop.

• Introducing Open Space
• Setting the agenda
• Workshops & discussions (session 1)

13.15 Lunch and networking (a sandwich lunch will be provided)

13.45 Open Space (part two): a chance to explore more questions & issues

• Workshops & discussions (session 2)
• Workshops & discussions (session 3)

15.15 Assembling learning and planning next steps: syndicate & plenary discussions

• What needs to happen next?

16.00 Close and further networking

Book your place now by emailing john.roberts2950@ntlworld.com (who will send you details of where to send a cheque etc.)

Please note, as with other conferences (like Bluelight Camp), the organisers are happy for people to be present in cognito (such as twitter handle) as it were.

Angels dancing on a bicycle

I am not a little cautious about writing this blog, but I simply cannot resist making a statement or two about so called #Plebgate. After all, nearly everyone else seems to be!

Unless it is suddenly discovered that the CCTV cameras at the entrance to Downing Street have microphones after all, we will probably never know exactly what words were exchanged on that fateful night. However, at the moment, I think we are none the wiser. Perhaps we will know more when the Met Police investigation finally reports. (Why is it taking so long to investigate at most a few minutes of conversation at what must be one of the most observed locations in the country...? Would lip readers help?)

Anyway, I thought it might be helpful to set down a few facts (as I see them) about recent discussions concerning the meeting between Andrew Mitchell and representatives of the Police Federation from West Mercia, West Midlands and Warwickshire.

First here is my transcript of what Ken Mackaill said to the press following the meeting that he and reps from West Midlands and Warwickshire had just had with Andrew Mitchell. (I have done my best to get it down word for word):

KM: Whilst he has repeated, to use his words, his profound apology’ with feeling for what he did say, he has also repeated his denial using many of the words reported in the officers’ notes recorded at the time. Um… his explanation for that is that he did not want to, to quote, ‘get into a firefight’ with the police or impugn the integrity of police officers (who are [?inaudible]) unfortunately left in the position where, er… his continued denial of facts recorded in police records does exactly that, so we are no further forward than we were an hour ago.

Journalist: Should he resign? 

KM: I think Mr Mitchell now has no option but to resign. He is continuing to refuse to elaborate on what happened. Um… I think his position is untenable. 

He may well have said more, but this is all that is up on this BBC website that I have seen.

The question being debated now is whether Mr Mackaill gave a false or misleading representation of the meeting that he and his colleagues had just had. (The BBC website link above gives the background on this, including views from the IPCC and this morning the West Midlands PCC released a statement, accessible here.)

In summary, having read the transcript of the meeting I do not see any incompatibility between Mr Mackaill's statement and what ground the meeting covered. (Tell me where you can if you disagree, of course.)

From that transcript we know what Mr Mitchell says he did not say and what words he did not use... However this is how the meeting (more or less) opened (with my added bold):

WARKS: So really the first question we have got to ask because that is why (inaudible) and this is also why this has gone on so long is because you haven’t been able to say what you actually did say and I think we would all like you to tell us what you did say.

AM: It is a very good point and I’ll tell you why I haven’t done that is because the police account was filtered through a very hostile national newspaper and the police have made no complaint and my apology was accepted and that I felt should draw a line under all of this because my memory of what I did and didn’t say is clear and I will not as a supporter of the police for twenty six years be put in a position of suggesting an officer is not telling the truth but equally I did not say and I give you my word, I give you my word, I did not call an officer an f’ing pleb I did not say you are an f’ing moron and I did not say you should know your f’ing place I would never speak to anyone like that least of all a police officer and you have my word I never said those things.

So, Mr Mitchell says what he did not say, and repeats this (for the record, perhaps, on several other occasions). But he does not answer the question posed to him, in my opinion.

Later on AM does say:

The incident was very brief I complied with the officer and I picked up my bicycle but I did say under my breath but audibly, in frustration, I thought you lot were supposed to f***ing help us and it is for that I apologise and I am grateful to that officer for accepting my apology and I should never have said it and I will never do it again

I am happy to be corrected but that is all he says about what he positively said in the 40 or so seconds that his approach to the gate took. It takes about 4 seconds to make that statement. What else was said? We do not know other than what the officers (we believe) put in their notebooks.

Elsewhere in the transcript Mr Mitchell says:

AM: With respect I haven’t told you anything I haven’t said before I hadn't said to you

and later on:

WARKS: What you have said to us is that the words you said you do not attribute, which is a lot different to you saying in my eyes what I said is different

AM: No it is the first time you heard me say it, in the reporting it is always clear that I have made it clear that I never used those words and in particular pleb and moron so I have not said anything new today but I have done you, because you are the leaders of the Fed in your three areas, the fair thing which is look you in the eye and tell you the truth there is nothing new or different I have said today there is no point in rehashing but I have said very little which is new today, I mean there is little point re hashing it but I have explained why I took the view, and it is frustrating.

[Again my added bold]

And to repeat again. Ken Mackaill concurred with that view when he said "we are no further forward than we were an hour ago"

So what is this really all about? Here are my theories:

1) Andrew Mitchell is a very competent and experienced politician, and some powerful friends (such as David Davies) want him back from the cold. I suspect that this is part of some big ducks being lined up in advance of replacing Mr Cameron as leader, should he lose the next election. (Or perhaps even before...?!)

2) Mr Cameron wants him back and this is all part of Mr Mitchell's journey back to power.

3) The Government have got wind of the results of the Met investigation which is going to fudge the whole issue and give a metaphorical shoulder shrug to the affair. So the Government wants to get some blood at least from Police Federation by going after the scalps of the three Fed officials from the meeting in question.

But really I don't know.... do you?

But I will give up now, lunch calls, and my geeky ocd obsession with the truth will have to be put back in the box where I try to keep it most of the time.


UPDATE 1951 / 17 October: PCC Bob Jones has now published his letter of 'concern' to IPCC Chief, Dame Anne Owers. You can read it here.

UPDATE 0737 / 18 October: Just clocked this report/statement from IPCC Deputy Chair Deborah Glass is available on the net too. No time to set down my analysis, but I would argue this is just grabbing at straws and her case does not hold water... in my opinion. But read it yourself and let me know what you think...

UPDATE 1853 / 18 October: Thanks to @IanBrealey, here is an extract from Channel 4 News yesterday which features more footage of the original press briefing post Fed/Andrew Mitchell meeting and a later interview with Ken Machaill. Worth watching. But again nothing in this that justifies him or the other Fed reps being had up for misconduct in my view.

UPDATE 1044 / 20 October: Not really an update, but here is a link to a contemporaneous report in the Telegraph of how the events unfolded from the fateful night. (Other useful Telegraph links here too: In full: Police log detailing Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' rant & David Cameron: no need to investigate Andrew Mitchell's four-letter police rant. (Thanks to @ianbrealey for pointing me in these directions - via Twitter)

UPDATE 1151 / 20 October: Due thanks to @ianbrealey again for pointing me towards this blog post near the time which forensically analyses the CCTV footage of the fateful night. I am not planning to get into the debate about the original incident (as I have said now on many occasions, let's wait for the Met Police investigation report). But this blog is illuminating in my opinion.

UPDATE 1227 / 20 October: Today's story in the Mail on Sunday claims to have established that (among other things) that DCC Chesterman of West Mercia 'blocked the disciplinary action' against officers involved in the meeting that was in the first version of the report prepared by Inspector Jeremy Reakes-Williams of West Mercia.

The piece also says that "separately, this newspaper has established that Met chief Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe ordered Greater Manchester Police to conduct a review into its initial handling of Plebgate. The probe was completed in June, but Scotland Yard has refused to make it public even though Sir Bernard said the review was ordered to create ‘more openness’" [my added bold]

UPDATE 1449 / 20 October: You may wish to listen to this audio recording of statement from Simon Chesterman, just highlighted for me by @markdpryan

We have not heard the last of all this yet...

Human Rights (BAD)

That is 'BAD' as in international Blog Action Day when thousands of bloggers all of the world get together and write a blog about a common theme. And the theme for this year (on 16 October 2013) is Human Rights.

I thought I would take a moment to highlight the UN Declaration of the Rights of the Child

1. All children have the right to what follows, no matter what their race, colour sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, or where they were born or who they were born to.
2. You have the special right to grow up and to develop physically and spiritually in a healthy and normal way, free and with dignity.
3. You have a right to a name and to be a member of a country.
4. You have a right to special care and protection and to good food, housing and medical services.
5. You have the right to special care if handicapped in any way.
6. You have the right to love and understanding, preferably from parents and family, but from the government where these cannot help.
7. You have the right to go to school for free, to play, and to have an equal chance to develop yourself and to learn to be responsible and useful. Your parents have special responsibilities for your education and guidance.
8. You have the right always to be among the first to get help.
9. You have the right to be protected against cruel acts or exploitation, e.g. you shall not be obliged to do work which hinders your development both physically and mentally. You should not work before a minimum age and never when that would hinder your health, and your moral and physical development.
10. You should be taught peace, understanding, tolerance and friendship among all people.

The UK implemented the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child post ratification in 1991. I am not qualified to judge whether we have public and other services which fully recognise all these rights. But we do all know that due to circumstances both within and outside government control, many children in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have these rights denied to them.

And that is something that concerns us all, I am sure. So what can we do? I think we can keep asking ourselves these questions, based (loosely) upon the 10 rights above:

1. How have I thought about and acted upon children's rights in the last week?
2. How can I add to the physical and spiritual development of the children I know?
3. When did I last listen (really listen) to a child telling me something about themselves?
4. What do I do to ensure that children get to live with safety, shelter and good food?
5. How can I make a difference to local accessibility?
6. When did I last show a child just how much I love them? 
7. What more can I do to support good play spaces and good schools?
8. When do I put children first?
9. How do I know that the stuff I buy hasn't been put together by a young child in forced labour?
10. When did I last teach peace, understanding, tolerance and friendship?

... and acting upon our answers.

Lastly, I will leave you with this which I came across many years ago (thanks to Findhorn). It is just the best way of thinking about how to really love a child (and respect their rights), in my opinion...