The rule of law is stronger than my bigotry

Last week a scruffy middle aged man had a heart attack. Not me, on this occasion, my next one won't be long coming but it hasn't happened yet. His name was Ian Tomlinson and his myocardial infarction was fatal. He was in the vicinity of a demonstration in the City of London and keeled over shortly after being in somewhat closer proximity to a policeman's baton than he might have liked. It is reported that the officer who pushed or knocked him to the ground has been suspended pending enquiries.

My guess, from the little I have seen about the incident, is that Mr Tomlinson was asked or told to move on and failed to do so. Assuming that request was lawful (which it probably was) the police would have been entitled to use reasonable force to have their lawful order complied with. If the force used against Mr Tomlinson was reasonable in all the circumstances the officer did not commit any offence even if Mr Tomlinson's heart attack was caused directly by the force used against him.

In the event that the force used against him was not lawful (because there was no prior request or order to move or because it was excessive force) the officer involved would be guilty of assault. He could even be guilty of manslaughter if the assault caused the fatal heart attack.

There are many ifs and buts in the whole thing. It is impossible to know the true position as an observer from the sidelines. Some will claim the police were in the wrong because that suits their political purposes, either because they support the demented crusty hippies or because they see it as evidence that we have become a police state. Others will claim the police were in the right because it matches their preconceptions. But no one knows because not all the relevant facts are in the public domain.

I am as guilty as anyone of seeking to judge cases like this and I do it from my point of view, with all the bias, preconceptions, stereotypical analysis and bigotry that involves. Some have commented that I don't seem very bigoted despite my chosen non de plume, well, on a topic like this my bigotry runs deep. I see Mr Tomlinson dawdling in front of a police line and assume he had been asked or told to move away at least once. My assumption is based on knowledge that they are required to make such a request of give such an order before they use any force at all. That doesn't mean it happened, but it explains my assumption. I see Mr Tomlinson's reaction when he is on the ground. His face snarled not, I think, by fear or pain but by shallow macho aggression. His hands reach out as his neck juts forward, just as you see in pubs on a Saturday night when the man with tattoos wants to pick a fight to impress his mini-skirted belle: "Are you looking at my bird? 'Ere, I'm talking to you, are you looking at my bird?" It's the same reaction you see on the football field when the modern style of overpaid professional cheat commits a foul and tries to defraud the referee with dishonest protestations of innocence.

If (and it's a big if) my estimation of Mr Tomlinson is correct - and don't give me any of that sanctimonious "don't speak ill of the dead" nonsense, I'm just calling it as I see it wearing my bigot hat - none of it excuses criminal conduct by the police. The rule of law, more than anything else, is what distinguished a civilised nation from a barbarian nation. It also distinguishes a flawed and damaged civilised nation from a police state. There can be no excuses and no whitewash if a police officer caused Mr Tomlinson's death by acting outside the law. If he acted within the law, he is as blameless as any of us would be using lawful force. If he acted outside the law, the penalty must be the same as it would be for you and me.

Had Mr Tomlinson not died a few minutes after the incident there would be no debate and no wild accusations. The footage of him being pushed/beaten to the ground would be a minor part of a review of events on the latest day the crusties thought they could overthrow capitalism. But he did die. It was as great a tragedy for his family as any death is for any family. They are entitled to know what happened and to see that justice is done according to the imperfect laws we have.

My mind goes back many years to my early days in the law. I was the most junior member of the team representing a defendant at the Old Bailey. My client was an occasional opportunist burglar of the grossest incompetence. To him an open window was an invitation for felonious entry and the grabbing of whatever saleable items he could carry. One night he passed a block of disheveled flats and couldn't resist the temptation of an open window. The flat in question was occupied by an old man who lived in awful conditions. Cockroaches and mice were rife. His wardrobe consisted of two pairs of trousers, a few nylon shirts and underwear of dubious age and cleanliness. He lived on bread and tins of soup. The hapless burglar had alighted upon one of the few properties in London containing absolutely nothing of value. Unfortunately he also alighted upon a frail old man who, despite his lonely existence and squalid living conditions, was entitled to live without disturbance and found the disturbance such an ordeal that he keeled over and died. A fatal heart attack. A pointless petty burglary resulted in a conviction for manslaughter and, if my memory is correct, nine years in prison.

A police officer who oversteps the mark and becomes a criminal rather than an upholder and enforcer of the law is no different from my pathetic client of long ago. Actually, there is a difference. These days there is little chance that nine years in prison will be the result. Maybe a sentence of five to seven of which only half will have to be served. But that is by-the-by, what matters is that the rule of law is upheld whatever one thinks of someone who behaved like Mr Tomlinson.

Bob-be-Quick's fundamental breach

I wrote last December about a police officer called Bob Quick. On that occasion he panicked and blurted out the truth, namely that he is biased against the Conservative Party. He remained in his job because hapless Jacqui, the so-called Home Secretary, is even more unfit for office than he is. Or so we thought.

Yesterday, Wednesday, a coordinated raid took part in the north of England and a number of suspected terrorists or terrorist supporters were arrested. It has now emerged that the raids were brought forward because Mr Quick disclosed a briefing paper about the suspects to the press. He did it in a particularly stupid and incompetent way, by holding the paper in his hand while stepping out of a car in Downing Street thereby allowing it to be photographed by the press. There is a fine example of one such press photograph in the BBC's report of the matter.

What wonderful irony. Last year he came up with a lunatic conspiracy theory that the Conservative Party was acting corruptly in association with some newspapers to obstruct a police investigation. Now he has obstructed a police investigation through his stupidity.

When I was in practice at the Bar I often had to read confidential papers on trains or in restaurants or hotel dining rooms. There was rarely anything in them of interest to anyone other than the parties to the case I was involved in, but the information contained in the documents belonged to those people and their interests had to be treated with respect. It was not a difficult exercise. If anyone was sitting next to me or opposite me on the train the papers would be held so that they could not read them. In a restaurant or hotel the arrival of the waiter would result in the file being closed for the duration and reopened only when any possible prying eyes had departed. It was done automatically because it was such an obvious and important part of my job. I could put it pompously and call it a matter of duty, technically that would be correct, but I prefer to look on it as a matter of not disclosing private information to people with no right to know about it.

To step out in front of press photographers displaying sensitive information about an anti-terrorism operation really is crassly incompetent. Had you or I been emailed such information by mistake and then disclosed it to the press we could rightly expect the law to come down on us pretty hard. Had a General or Admiral during wartime disclosed tactical secrets in this way we wouldn't expect him to retain his position for very long. So, can we expect Bob Quick to fall on his sword or be reassigned to count traffic bollards in Cornwall? Oh no. That is not how it works when you are one of the current government's favourites. And what a favourite he is. Hapless Jacqui referred to him by his first name when addressing the press, as I noted in December. No word of censure or criticism has come from the government this time round. Even the sweetly-pensioned has-been known as "Red" Ken Livingstone has spoken out in support of this clumsy dolt. Having lost his poodle Sir Ian Blair as Commissioner, Mr Livingstone couldn't bear the thought of another tame lackey departing the senior ranks of the constabulary.

Mr Livingstone is quoted as describing what Mr Quick did as "holding a piece of paper the wrong way", as though he had used the butter knife for the fish course during a Royal banquet. This was not a matter of paper etiquette, the man disclosed highly secret details of an ongoing delicate investigation. It was a fundamental breach of duty.

Let's go back to the General and Admiral I mentioned earlier. I can be pretty sure they wouldn't wait to be asked before tendering their resignations. They would do so as a matter of duty because they would put their duty above their personal interest. Then let's ask what would happen if a probationary Constable had been sent with this document to Downing Street because Mr Quick had left it in his office. How long would he remain on the public payroll if he stepped out of the cab brandishing it in exactly the way Mr Quick did? One only has to ask the question for the answer to be obvious. The moment his error was exposed he would be made an example of and sent packing without so much as a "thank you and good luck". Mr Quick and hapless Jacqui would be at the forefront of those decrying the irresponsibility of the probationer and warning of the need for eternal vigilance in the war on terror. And they would be right.

If, as I am happy to assume, Mr Quick is a highly experienced and highly skilled anti-terrorist police officer his departure from office would probably be a loss to public service, at least in the short term, although there are perfectly well established ways in which he could be consulted for a fee were his expertise needed.

I am troubled that this is yet another illustration of someone who holds high office in this country putting themselves above their duty. Their duty must always come first. Their personal pride, their ambition and their pension must always give precedence to their duty. Many think they are indispensable but history shows that not to be the case. American Presidents are limited to a maximum of ten years in office no matter how successful they have been (or think they have been). The world continues turning when they leave office even if they have more to give. Whether you are a police officer or a President there is always someone capable of taking over, indeed someone has to take over some day. Breach of a fundamental duty should always accelerate that day.

Update
Well, well, it seems the power of my little blog is greater than I thought. Mr Quick has now resigned. Well done Bob, you got there at last.

The winter madness of Bob-be-Quick

You don't normally expect collective insanity to strike in the middle of winter, somehow it is usually a consequence of prolonged exposure to the blazing summer sun. I speak, of course, about the acts of all parties in the matter of Bob Quick. Mr Quick is a senior anti-terrorist policeman and is in charge of the investigation into the leaking of little bits of inconsequential information to the Conservative MP Damian Green. At the weekend a newspaper disclosed where he lives. This information was already freely available but Mr Quick decided it put his life in peril and panicked. He is reported to have claimed the publication of his address was the result of a spiteful and corrupt plot by "the Tory machinery and their press friends" to intimidate him into dropping the enquiry into how Mr Green received the leaked information.

Yesterday he withdrew the allegation of corrupt behaviour and today he used a most extraordinary phrase in the course of withdrawing his comments and apologising, he said "it was not my intention to make any allegations".

The Conservative Party has formally accepted the apology and said the matter is now closed; Dominic Grieve, the shadow Home Secretary, making sure the depth of Mr Quick's stupidity was exposed by describing his comments as "completely deluded".

The hapless so-called Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, could do no better than say "Bob has retracted some of the things he said over the weekend" and then say that he should get on with the job.

I think they've all gone barmy.

Let's assume that Mr Quick felt in genuine peril for the safety of his family. In that event it is perhaps understandable that he would let his true feelings be known even though more mature judgment would have kept them under wraps. That isn't the point, though, the point is that he said what he really felt. That there was no evidence to support it, thereby forcing him to retract today, does not stop his comment from reflecting what he thinks. Here is one of the most senior police offices in the country who believes the main opposition party has colluded with a newspaper to undermine a police investigation and has expressed that belief in language showing blatant bias against that party. To make matters worse he thinks an apology in which he tells a clear and obvious lie will make things better. The lie, of course, is his assertion that he did not intend to make any allegations. Nothing could be further from the truth. If he didn't intend to make any allegations he would not have used the words he did. What he did not intend to do was make a complete fool of himself and show his bias, but he most assuredly did intend to make allegations.

He intended to allege: (i) spite, (ii) corruption, (iii) collusion between the Conservative Party and a newspaper, (iv) a desire by the Conservative Party and that newspaper to intimidate him and (v) a criminal conspiracy by the Conservative Party and the newspaper to obstruct the course of justice. He intended all those things because you cannot what he said by accident. Either you mean them or you are mad. Giving him the benefit of the doubt in this season of goodwill I will rule out gibbering insanity, which leaves intentional conduct. He intended it every bit as much as I intend to say he is unfit for office when I use the words "he is unfit for office", no other meaning can be intended and there is no scope for it being a slip of the tongue, it is what I genuinely believe just as he genuinely believed what he said yesterday.

The reaction of the Conservatives is equally baffling. How they can say the matter is closed when a senior policeman has shown bias against them is beyond me. To see just how baffling it is all we have to do is pretend the Conservatives are in government and that Mr Quick was investigating leaks to a Labour MP, what would happen if he alleged that the Labour Party spitefully and corruptly colluded with a newspaper to intimidate him and obstruct his investigation? The answer is obvious, there would be outrage led by the BBC and the man's head would be on a metaphorical spike within a week. His attempted apology would be exposed as based on a lie and he would be required to explain how he could have used the words he did if he had not meant them. On it being established that he did mean them he would have to resign for showing blatant party political bias. The Labour Party, in that reverse scenario, would be ill-advised to lead the attack because to do so could be construed as an attempt to frustrate his enquiry, but they would not need to, the BBC would do it for them and before long the government would support the BBC's line. The Conservatives will get no support from the BBC but they should not say the matter is closed when the fitness of Mr Quick to remain in his post is under question.

And that is why Jacqui Smith's position is simply bizarre. She should be saying that it is completely unacceptable for a senior police officer to disclose enmity towards one political party because to do so is contrary to the necessary independence of the police from party politics. Instead she made three monumental blunders, all caused by the simple fact that she is a party functionary who is completely out of her depth in one of the great Offices of State.

The first was to refer to Mr Quick as "Bob". I cannot recall any occasion in which I have heard a Home Secretary refer to a senior police officer in public by an abbreviation of his first name, it's completely and utterly wrong. When they are sharing a cup of pureed tofu while discussing plans to reverse the burden of proof they can call each other "bunnykins" for all I care, but when performing their official functions in public they must keep to surnames or ranks. To do otherwise is to confuse their personal positions with the official duties they have to perform.

Secondly, she said Mr Quick had withdrawn "some" of the things he said. He had, in fact, withdrawn every substantive point he made. There are two equally plausible explanations for her saying he had only withdrawn some. One is that she hadn't bothered finding out exactly what he said yesterday and exactly what he said today. That would be consistent with the incompetence she has shown throughout her time as Home Secretary. The other is that she wanted to keep alight the flame her friend Bob lit yesterday. There could be votes in an allegation that the Opposition were obstructing a police investigation and by saying he had withdrawn some of what he said she keeps alive the possibility of a small party political advantage.

Thirdly, she endorsed Mr Quick in his present post. This is the most bizarre part of all because, not only has he shown party political bias inconsistent with his duty (and particularly inconsistent with him having any further involvement in the leak enquiry), but he has shown himself to be a man capable of panicking under pressure and making serious errors of judgment. He's meant to be in charge of anti-terrorism activities. If ever a job needs a cool head under pressure it is that, yet he shouts off at the mouth with a lunatic conspiracy theory when information in the public domain is spread more widely than he would like. In sensitive areas a single incident of this type always used to be enough to have someone quietly retired to take charge of counting traffic bollards in Cornwall.

Of course hopeless Jacqui cannot distinguish between what is good for her party and what is consistent with her duties as Home Secretary. She knows her friend Bob is anti-Conservative. In her lacklustre brain that means he supports the Labour Party. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, all he has disclosed is that he is anti-Conservative but she will see that as support for Labour. Her mission, therefore, is to keep him on board. Her duty is to condemn overt party political bias of any kind in the police. I doubt that she knows this but even if she does it will always come a poor second behind promoting her party.

Leaky ignorance is bliss

The Damian Green affair has become more and more curious as the day has progressed. For anyone who doesn't know, Mr Green is the opposition MP arrested yesterday following his receipt of leaked documents from the Home Office which he then made public. Both the leaks themselves and his use of the leaked information occurred some time ago. There are three aspects of the affair which cause my greying eyebrows to head skywards.

Before Mr Green was arrested a number of people were informed by the police of their intention to make an arrest. It is not yet clear whether the identity of the person to be arrested was disclosed but the fact that he was a senior opposition spokesman appears to have been made known. The people informed include the Leader of the Opposition, the Mayor of London and the Speaker of the House of Commons. It later became known that the chief civil servant at the Home Office was also informed. Both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have given the impression that they did not know of the intention to arrest an opposition spokesman, a position supported by the police.

There is a curious contradiction in what the police did. I can understand that they might see fit to inform the Leader of the Opposition because the MP in question is a member of his party. I can also understand the Speaker being informed because the intention was not just to arrest Mr Green but also to search his offices, including his office in the House of Commons. The Speaker has overall responsibility for the conduct of business in the House and has a legitimate interest in knowing that an office in the building for which he is responsible is to be searched. But why include the Mayor? The Mayor, Boris Johnson, is a senior member of the opposition party but he has no party responsibilities. He is the chairman of the body which oversees the work of the Metropolitan police but his responsibility for that police force is secondary to that of the Home Secretary, she is the government minister with overall responsibility for all police forces in the country. It makes no sense to tell someone lower down the chain but not tell the boss.

The question arises why the police should tell anyone at all, after all if they are going to arrest Joe Ordinary they wouldn't find it necessary to tell his employer or wife they would just do it. The answer is that it is done as a matter of courtesy where the action the police propose to take would or could impact on public responsibilities and raise questions senior political leaders are likely to be required to answer. Informing politicians of an impending arrest does not involve seeking their permission or giving them an opportunity to debate the matter, it is a one-way street: "this is what we are planning to do, we inform you out of courtesy, thank you and good afternoon."

If there is one senior politician in the firing line for questions about such a politically sensitive arrest it is the Home Secretary. She has ultimate political responsibility for the way the police operate in this country and questions about the arrest of a senior opposition MP are directly within her brief. It is curious indeed that she was kept out of the loop. It is reported that her most senior civil servant was informed that an arrest was to be made, what is not known is whether the police chose to inform him rather than the Home Secretary or dealt with him because she was unavailable. Either way it should make no difference because his responsibility is to report to the head of department on something so important. No doubt we will discover over the next few days whether he took any step to tell the Home Secretary, it would be utterly bizarre if he did not. She would get to know of the arrest very shortly after it happened and, no doubt, would have a few choice words if her chief underling had kept it secret. It is hard to believe she did not learn about it within a few minutes of the police informing him. If that is so, why deny knowledge of it as she has, why not say "I was not informed personally by the police but my department was informed and that news was given to me at [insert time]"?

The second curious feature is that the police thought it necessary to arrest Mr Green. We know that a junior civil servant was arrested almost two weeks ago on suspicion of having leaked information and it is reasonable to infer that Mr Green's name came up during the investigation as the recipient of that information. He could be questioned about it without being arrested. That questioning would almost certainly have to be under caution and in the presence of appropriate legal advisers, but arrest seems a very heavy-handed step to take. Perhaps he was arrested so that the police would be entitled to search his homes and offices but he could be asked for permission for a search to take place and informed that he will be arrested if he refused permission so that a search could then be made anyway. To jump the gun by arresting first seems a peculiar way to go about things, they had no reason to believe he would adopt Enron administrative practices and have a bevy of staff on hand to shred documents at the first sniff of investigation. After all, there has been nothing secret or underhand in his use of leaked information, he has put it into the public domain in the course of legitimate political debate just as politicians of all parties have for as long as anyone can remember.

My third concern is about the acquiescence of the Speaker to a search of an MP's office. Although the BBC report I link to above says that the Speaker was informed of the police's intention to arrest an MP I have heard it said that the Serjeant at Arms was the person informed of their intention to conduct a search on Parliamentary premises and raised no objection. I find this a quite extraordinary scenario. The police have no right to search anywhere in the Palace of Westminster without the permission of the Speaker. Even a search warrant issued by a court is merely a request for permission to search if the premises are part of the Parliamentary estate. Although I did not hear the interview I have read that Tony Benn said at lunchtime that the arrest and search were a contempt of Parliament. I am not sure I would go as far as that because there can be no contempt if permission is given, to my mind the important question is why permission was given.

In the days when the Serjeant at Arms was a hairy-arsed retired Brigadier any hint that the police wanted to conduct a search would have been met with a brisk response, probably "bugger off, raise the matter formally with the Speaker and he will consult the House." Today, as the BBC reports, the response is "There is a process to be followed and that was followed." This might just be unfortunate wording but it gives the impression that the Speaker overlooked that Parliament has the right to regulate itself in every way, it is its own court. That is why there is such a thing as contempt of Parliament, it is also why MPs are immune from legal action over things said in Parliament. That does not mean that it is above the law, merely that, as the supreme law making body, it has the right to protect its position of independence from outside influences.

To search an MP's office is a highly significant act. Not only will he have confidential details of constituents and correspondence of a sensitive and private nature from those he represents, but he might also have documents concerning potential future policy (including policy affecting the police). Overriding the confidentiality of such things requires a greater justification than "There is a process to be followed and that was followed." In my view the Speaker should insist that no search is conducted unless the police can show an urgent need either because certain individual(s) are at physical risk or national security is at risk. Anything less cannot outweigh the need to maintain strict confidentiality for the working papers of MPs, no matter what we think of the MPs in question.

Some have speculated that this whole episode is a government driven attempt to silence opposition. I would not put such an approach beyond our hopeless and dishonest Prime Minister but there is no evidence of it, yet. Others have suggested it was an act of revenge against the Conservative Party by the outgoing Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Again, that is not beyond the bounds of possibility but there is no evidence of it, yet. Others still have hinted at it being an attempt by the police to undermine Parliament. This one, I think, I can safely dismiss as absurd.

The true picture will emerge in time. We will find out exactly what prompted the investigation, who took the decision to arrest Mr Green and why the Home Secretary was not informed at the same time as the others I have mentioned. With any luck politicians will close ranks and assert their right to use leaked information because those in opposition need to do it now and those in government will need to do it later.

There is one possibility no one seems to have addressed yet. As I understand it Mr Green was arrested on suspicion of two offences: (i) conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and (ii) aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office. It seems that the only "misconduct in a public office" was that of the person who leaked information to him. Conspiracy to commit that offence would require more than just receiving leaked information, conspiracy requires a plan hatched by two or more people. Aiding and abetting an offence can happen without any positive act of encouragement but counselling and procuring both require you to do something to encourage the crime. Merely receiving leaked documents would not, I think, be an offence and their use in Parliament cannot be an offence. Taking steps to encourage leaks, paying for the information when it is offered or actively planning a method by which confidential documents will be disclosed would be in a different category. I know not whether Mr Green did any such thing and I presume he did not because the presumption of innocence is hugely important. But if he did, the case would have a rather different complexion. It would also take on a different political dimension because the question would arise whether others have done the same, including those in government.

What if it is asserted that Mr Green took active steps to encourage the disclosure of documents not in the public domain? Dare the government let the case proceed and face investigation into their own conduct when in opposition? In these times when domestic burglary gets a police caution (it was an unappealable minimum sentence of three years in the late 1980s), a getaway driver for a gang of armed robbers can get community service (five years), armed robbers themselves can get three or four years (ten if they were lucky even in 1990), is there anything to fear from investigations? Of course there is because it would end careers. If the police decide to proceed it will be interesting to see whether the Attorney General intervenes and uses her exceptional power to stop the prosecution. She would be right to do so but I hope it never gets that far.

All change at the cop shop

So, Sir Ian Blair has finally announced his resignation as Britain's Top Cop, having been told he did not have the confidence of the new Mayor of London (who is also the head of the supervisory body of London's police force). Within minutes of his announcement the lefties were lining up to praise him and the moderates were lining up to list his failings. Given great prominence was perhaps the most absurd political figure Britain has known in my lifetime, Ken Livingstone. As I understood his slurred rant on BBC radio he was arguing that the new Mayor of London had sought to politicise the police by undermining their leader. How wrong poor Ken is, in every possible way. One might have thought he would know better after thirty years in London and national politics, but no; I am not in the least surprised. For Ken's benefit let us look at the fundamentals.

The primary role of the police is to keep the peace. Stepping in to stop a fight or acting to prevent a fight is essentially non-political. In all other areas the work of the police is political, not necessarily party-political but political nonetheless. This is an inevitable consequence of the fact that the police must exercise discretions every day. How do they choose between targetting burglaries and targetting muggings? They can't target both because they don't have sufficient manpower, a balance must be struck. The decision of policy is taken not by PC Plod on the ground but by senior officers, of whom Top Cop is the most senior.

Politicians of all parties seek to influence such policy decisions by calling for their latest hobby horse to be given greater priority. The job of Top Cop is to listen to representations and decide, he is not obliged to follow edicts from the Home Secretary but will often do so. The government's suggestions on such matters have special weight because they are elected to office, yet Top Cop has the power to say he cannot comply with the Home Secretary's wishes because he has insufficient manpower. His final decision is a political decision.

On the ground PC Plod often has to choose which law to enforce and how to do so. This is not just a matter of choosing between arresting an offender or giving him a talking to, it can be a choice between attending one reported crime or another or between enforcing one law where to do so might cause another to be breached. These are value judgments of a political nature and can be influenced by PC Plod's own political views. PC Plod sees someone trying to break into a car and at the same time another car zooms past in excess of the legal speed limit, he cannot nab both so he has to choose, will it be car thief or car driver who ends up in the book? Which does he consider the more serious offence? This is a political decision. Lefty Plod is pleased to see an expensive car being broken into so he chooses to pursue the speeder, Righty Plod considers property more important than fast driving which has harmed no one, Wishy-Washy Plod can't decide and calls for back-up.

In everyday policing innumerable decisions must be taken which have a political element to them. In that respect politics and policing cannot be separated. Top Cop who always follows the line advocated by the Home Secretary of the day is unlikely to be at risk of losing his job simply because of a change in local or national government because he has not shown himself to be partisan, merely to be willing to take the path of least resistance.

It is different when Top Cop engages in public debate about the policies the police should follow. One would hope Top Cop always leaves the Home Secretary in no doubt where he stands on a particular issue, but he must do that in private so that his representations are part of the Home Secretary's decision making process. He must not do it in public because to do so is to descend into the political arena in too direct a way. His role is not to make the law but to enforce it in the way he sees best, arguing in public for a particular course of action brings him too close to the law-making function and hampers his ability to be seen to be exercise his operational discretion impartially.

Ken Livingstone is, of course, an extremist fanatic. He has no ability to see beyond his blinkered dream of State Socialism. Anything and everything that furthers his cause is acceptable to him, hence his failure to condemn the use of violence by those supporting his position. Anything he disagrees with is condemned as a plot by fascist reactionaries. That is his simple minded world. He cannot help it, it is just the way he is, just as Peter Sutcliffe could not help himself when he came across a prostitute. Having Top Cop come out in public saying all the things Ken holds dear was not, in poor Ken's mind, a political act, it was another step on the way to the joyous freedom only the lucky people of Cuba and North Korea enjoy. And so it is when the new Mayor says he does not have confidence in Sir Ian Blair because he has descended into the political arena, Ken must open his mouth and accuse his successor of playing politics with the police.

The next Top Cop must keep his mouth shut in public save for issuing standard assurances that his force is doing everything it can to fight crime. Anything more specific and he runs the risk of allying himself with one party, as Sir Ian Blair did, which inevitably risks alienating the other party and making it impossible for him to be trusted when government changes.