The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and the DCiC* and PSPCC**, Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM, is in the Chair.  And the expected row about the future of neighbourhood policing in London has just petered out.

New readers might want to check out Pippa Crerar in the Evening Standard to get the context, but the story is pretty simple: Mayor Boris Johnson and the PSPCC have been very vague for the last two years about whether they were really committed to maintaining the current structure of safer neighbourhood teams created by former Mayor Ken Livingstone; but this week one Borough Commander has written to local councillors telling them that the number of officers in the safer neighbourhood teams in his patch might be reduced and that they would work “more flexibly” rather than remaining dedicated to particular neighbourhoods; and more or less simultaneously and this coincided with a statement from the PSPCC and the real Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, stating that every neighbourhood would continue to have named officers responsible for tackling local crime but adding ominously:

“Currently the teams are dedicated to ward boundaries, which we want to ensure continues to meet your and the public’s local needs. We also want to ensure the structure of the teams, and how they are supervised, makes the best use of skills and resources so that we can meet local demand effectively.”

A cynic (actually, it was me) pointed out that every neighbourhood having named officers is not the same as a neighbourhood team – indeed Sir Paul and his Deputy, Tim Godwin, could arguably be named as the officers responsible for tackling local crime in every ward in London.

The Commissioner assured the meeting that “no decisions have been taken”, despite the letters going out from Borough Commanders implying the opposite.  This prompted Dee Doocey AM to make the accusation “you are trying to con us” (which she then withdrew on being told she was being “unparliamentary” – she is allegedly on a list of possible new LibDem peers).

The Commissioner couldn’t yet give assurances that the total number of officers and PCSOs  engaged in Safer Neighbourhood Teams would remain uncut, but he expressed a personal preference for retaining links to local government ward boundaries.  And he did promise that officers would still be “dedicated” to local areas – without a commitment on how many and what the areas would finally be.   As to fairness between areas (ie every ward receiving the same allocation of Safer Neighbourhood resources), he acknowledged that this had been the basis on which the Safer Neighbourhood Teams had been established but did warn that there was debate on what this might mean in the future.

This debate is not yet over ……

*Dog-Catcher-in-Chief

**Putative Surrogate Policing and Crime Commissioner

I have already explained that I really don’t mind.

However, just in case you really really want to cast your vote for this blog in the Total Politics annual beauty parade, this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

I have already explained that I really don’t mind.

However, just in case you really really want to cast your vote for this blog in the Total Politics annual beauty parade, this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

I am not looking for any recognition, as you know these things don’t matter to me at all and I am profoundly disinterested in where this blog comes in the annual Total Politics ranking of political blogs, so I really am not asking for you to vote for me or my blog ……..

but ……..

should you be so inclined (and I repeat I really, really don’t mind one way or the other), this is what you have to do:

The rules are:
1. You must vote for your ten favourite blogs and rank them from 1 (your favourite) to 10 (your tenth favourite).
2. Your votes must be ranked from 1 to 10. Any votes which do not have rankings will not be counted.
3. You MUST include at least FIVE blogs in your list, but please list ten if you can. If you include fewer than five, your vote will not count.
4. Email your vote to toptenblogs@totalpolitics.com
5. Only vote once.
6. Only blogs based in the UK, run by UK residents or based on UK politics are eligible. No blog will be excluded from voting.
7. Anonymous votes left in the comments will not count. You must give a name.
8. All votes must be received by midnight on 31 July 2010. Any votes received after that date will not count.

So I’m not asking you to do it, but I really won’t mind if you do……

At the last meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority, the ubiquitous Jenny Jones AM asked the Commissioner the following question:

“The new coalition government is planning to adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database. What will this mean for the Met and how are you preparing the ground for the changes?”

The written answer has just been released and includes the following piece of information:

“In 2008/09, the ACPO Criminal Records Office found that 79 rape, murder or manslaughter cases in England and Wales were matched to the DNA database from DNA profiles that belonged to individuals who had been arrested but not convicted of any crime. Of that number, 36 cases were found to have had a direct and specific value to the investigation. If we were to have applied the Scottish model’s retention regime to this number and retained only those who were arrested but not convicted of a serious crime, then the number of potential detections would have reduced by almost 2/3 to just 13 detections. In short, 23 victims of the most serious crimes and their families could have been denied justice last year alone under the Scottish model.”

Maybe this is another area that the Coalition Government will have to start “reviewing”.

A quiet – bordering on the boring – meeting of the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee of the Metropolitan Police Authority suddenly burst into life this afternoon when it was asked to authorise £10.6 million to provide kennelling for another 400 dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act.

I growled that it would be a lot cheaper just to shoot the dogs rather than cage them (which in itself is fairly cruel for large dogs) for six months or more while the legal processes following their seizure grind through the courts.  Much to my surprise, the sentiment attracted unanimous support from other Committee members – even the saintlier-than-thou Jenny Jones AM admitted that she didn’t like attack dogs.

It was agreed that the DCiC*, Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM, Chair of the MPA, who has been making his name tackling the issue of dangerous dogs in London, should write to the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, asking her to agree fast-track culling powers for the Police in relation to the animals.

However, even though everyone knows that the new Con/Lib Coalition** Government walks on water, it was decided to authorise the money just in case the new powers take a bit of time to come through.

*     Dog-Catcher-in-Chief

**  aka “the mongrel” – copyright Mayor Boris Johnson

After voting, I spent the morning campaigning in Wood Green in one of the wards that will be pivotal in determining whether Haringey Council remains Labour and whether LibDem Lynne Featherstone is replaced as MP by Labour’s excellent Karen Jennings.

I  had originally intended to work today in Hornsey Ward – the area I represented for 24 years until 2002.  However, I was told that they already had at least forty committed helpers there alone – a support level never achieved in the six local and seven national elections that I remember in that Ward.

In Wood Green, amongst the electors that I saw, not only was the Labour vote holding up, but also there was an enthusiasm to vote that was extremely encouraging.

Again, there was only a minimal Tory presence – it amounted to a gas-guzzling car parked outside the polling station with a large Conservative poster on its side and the engine running in case the parking attendants came by.

Members of the House of Lords are like convicted prisoners and people detained under the Mental Health Act – we don’t have a vote in UK Parliamentary elections.  I am tempted to believe that when the franchise was framed those drafting the legislation equated the inside of the House of Lords with a penal establishment or a lunatic asylum.  However, I expect the real reason is that as we are already Members of Parliament we do not need further representation in the House of Commons.

We do, however, get a vote in elections for the European Parliament and for local elections.

So this morning I was able to play my part in the democratic process.  It also set a test for Haringey’s electoral administrators as to whether I would be issued with the right ballot paper – a test I am pleased to say they passed without me having to prompt them!

I cast my three votes, of course, for the three Labour Council candidates – all of whom will make excellent councillors if elected.

Two notable features.

First, the polling station was busy.  The presiding officer, who has been presiding there for as long as I can remember, said it was the heaviest morning voting that she could recall and that there had been people waiting outside to vote at 6.50am.  So, it looks as if there is going to be a high turnout.

Second, there was a complete absence of the Tory Party.  There were tellers outside the polling station from Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, but no Conservatives – even though this was a constituency that was continuously Conservative up until 1992.

The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and the DCiC* (Deputy Mayor Kit Malthouse AM) is in the Chair.  The meeting has a comparatively heavy agenda – at least in comparison to recent meetings when the Conservative Party’s policy of trying not to discuss anything but the Commissioner’s Report at full Authority meetings.

On the Bill today (sorry, unintentional pun) is the long-awaited report of the MPA’s Civil Liberties Panel on public order policing (arising from the issues around the G20 protests) and approval of the Policing London Business Plan for the next three years.  What is more the DCiC has told members that he wants to finish promptly at 12 noon, so that there can be a private meeting of Authority members to discuss the MPA’s own priorities.

This means that the DCiC will have to use his (rarely used) powers of patience, courtesy and charm to get through the business expeditiously without cutting off any members in full flow.  So far, he is doing fine.

But everyone is on their best behaviour.  Jenny Jones AM is clearly trying to curry favour and is acting as teacher’s pet – fetching the DCiC’s coffee without being asked (of course, I don’t know whether she has put anything in it to induce a mellow haze in the DCiC).

It is left to Anne McMeel, the Metropolitan Police’s Director of Resources, to introduce the first touch of asperity with her put-down of Dee Doocey AM who asks for more detail on the costs of operations and is told that it is in the report to the Finance and Resources Sub-Committee “admittedly on the last page”, implying that Liberal Democrats don’t read all the way through to the end.

But the clock is ticking and the Commissioner’s Report item hasn’t been finished yet and there is only 50 minutes of normal time left.  And the DCiC has chewed his way through two pen caps and is shuffling backwards and forwards in his chair.

*Dog-Catcher-in-Chief

Fanatical followers of this blog (and you both know who you are) will be aware that – as is my habit – I posted a short tongue-in-cheek piece from the Metropolitan Police Authority meeting at 11.06 on Thursday 25th February.

This poked gentle fun at the man I call the DCiC (Dog-Catcher-in-Chief), Kit Malthouse, and his sensitivity about the nit-picking from the Green’s Jenny Jones at his attendance record.  I referred to his boast that he had attended 46 meetings since the last session of the MPA and this Stakhanovite work-rate was even more impressive given that he had been on holiday for a week of that time.  I also mentioned his nickname: “HoT” – a reference to his Hand on Tiller fixation.

Sometimes I think my sense of humour is rather esoteric and unlikely to be shared by anyone else, so it was gratifying to learn that some three hours later at 2.02 Ross Lydall posted his own thoughts on the same subject on the Evening Standard web-site.  He even has his own nickname for Kit – he calls him “The Tillerman” and he linked to the same article as I did to illustrate the nitpicking.

My cup runneth over – I am not alone.

We clearly are thinking the same.

Ross Lydall, under the headline

Met chairman Kit Malthouse: Tea for the ‘Tillerman’ at so many meetings

said:

“Kit Malthouse began his first meeting as chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority by revealing he had attended or chaired 46 meetings since the MPA last met (on January 28). What’s more, he had squeezed in a week’s holiday to boot.

Why this inconsequential start to proceedings? Because the Greens made quite a fusson the eve of his confirmation hearing as MPA chair (he succeeds the fleeing Boris, who has obviously realised what hard work it is) by revealing that Kit had failed to ever attend all three key MPA sub-committees of which he is a member in the 18 months since the Tory takeover of City Hall.”

And I said (just three hours earlier):

“The Metropolitan Police Authority is in session and the DCiC*, Deputy Mayor Kit “HoT”** Malthouse AM is in the Chair.

And the DCiC was showing his sensitive side.  He has clearly been hurt by the criticism that he is too busy to fulfil the role of MPA Chair and the nit-picking about his attendance record at MPA Committee meetings.  So the item on the agenda for his oral report consisted merely of him telling the Authority that he had had 46 meetings in the last month – and as he was away or one of the weeks concerned that works out as a productivity rate of around 3 per working day.

He promises to keep us informed of his work rate at future meetings, but that will not satisfy Jenny Jones AM.  She wants an indicator measuring the “quality” of the meetings.  No doubt those meeting HoT in future will be asked to fill in a form afterwards asking “how was it for them?”

However, HoT is clearly alive to this danger: he assured the Authority that he prefers what he calls “action” to meetings.”

Now isn’t that nice ….