Criminal Justice UK - The Police Part 2 - Reform of Police Governance

At first glance, it is difficult to understand why police performance is currently under such intense scrutiny and why a range of politicians, practitioners and commentators are calling for fundamental reform of the Police Service. Police recorded crime has fallen since 2007 and the criminal justice system brings more offenders to justice each year than ever before.

Challenges to today’s Police Service

The positives outlined above mask the emergence of genuine performance challenges in the Police Service. Decline in the number of crimes committed is marred by criticism that recorded crime is open to manipulation and distortion to produce politically favourable results. Gun crime and violent crimes are more common now than in the past. Offenders Brought to Justice (OBTJ) targets are increasingly being met through punishment of minor offences, for example with cautions for the possession of cannabis. Those from disadvantaged groups are disproportionately affected by crime – and this is the case now more than ever before.

While the police management have diverted their focus on reassuring the public, overall police productivity in terms of crime detection is flat: each warranted officer detected just 9 crimes per year in 2009, less than in 2001, and each current detection costs more in real terms than a detection in 2001. Such productivity issues may in part be due to low levels of morale within the Police Service, as evidence suggests that many frontline workers are struggling to cope with changes in their working environment imposed by Chief Officers and feel ill at ease with the target-based performance management framework. Another explanation lies in the fact that the crime landscape itself is changing with increasing rapidity: new criminal techniques and technologies combine with a fast changing distribution of crime types, and shifting public and political priorities requiring an ever more responsive police system.

The need for reform

The Government’s main response to these challenges has been to significantly increase spending on the police. Police resources have increased by over 25 per cent in real terms since 2001. However, such a response is no longer sustainable. The recent Home Office spending settlement dictates that police spending will have to remain at current levels at least until 2012. Simply pumping money into the policing system as it is currently configured appears to be producing limited and perhaps even decreasing returns. As a result, officials and commentators have started to look for other ways to improve performance and responsiveness.

One area that has been the focus of much public debate concerns the potential for a radical reconfiguration of police accountability and governance arrangements – with, for example, the Conservative Party proposing locally elected Police Chiefs as the primary change mechanism.

Labour’s approach to managing the police service over the last 10 years now needs to change dramatically if real reforms are to be seen. The Government’s policing strategy has been to spend more money on the police (increasing the number of police officers to record levels) and to drive up performance through the use of centrally imposed targets. This approach cannot continue. There is no more money to spend and the target regime reduced the ability of police forces to respond to changing local demands.

CHANGE STARTS AT THE TOP – WITH THE WAY FORCES ARE GOVERNED

None of these reforms can be progressed unless a wider set of problems are tackled that are caused by the way the police service is governed, organised and held to account. For true change to materialise at the front line, the primary focus must first be the reform of the current system of governance of the police service.

Unless the governance system itself is transformed, any substantive programme of reform will suffer the same fate as those that preceded it: opposition within different parts of the service followed by a government ‘U-turn’ for fear of a politically costly conflict with the police. The first reform priority therefore has to be to design a system of governance that is more coherent and less fragmented and that empowers local and national police leaders to deliver change in the public interest.

THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNENCE IS FRAGMENTED

The structure of the police presents a block to necessary reform. The “tripartite model” – with power shared between the Home Secretary, Police Authorities and Chief Constables – means that Government does not have effective control over national policing priorities. The 43 forces are run as fiefdoms by their Chief Constables. To get things done, the Home Office resorts to bribing forces with sweeteners.

In perhaps the most critical report yet about the seats of power within the police service, we look in dept at the mechanics of ACPO [Association of Chief Police Officers], NPIA [National Police Improvement Agency] and APA [Association of Police Authorities].

This report pulls no punches. It takes a cold hard look at the three agencies, explores the contraversy that surrounds them and how their respective organisations have wasted and diverted tax payers money with profligate spending and misappropriate use of their powers.

Click here or any of the prior links to read or download the report.

For many senior police Chiefs, this will make uncomfortable reading. The time for passive acquiesence is passed. Reform is needed now and on the run up to the general election, with crime and policing in the public eye, there has never been a more appropriate time for this important subject to be placed under the spotlight. Change must start at the top. Improper practices must be rooted out from the top down if confidence is ultimately to be restored in this vital part of the criminal justice system.

In the report you will read how :-

• ACPO conducts itself as an oligarchy, the  very opposite of democracy
• The Home Secretary strikes deals with ACPO to exert political influence
• Sir Hugh Orde is at odds with the Conservative viewpoint, saying police chiefs would resign rather than accept the Tory policy of elected police commissioners to hold forces to account. 
• ACPO leaders give “political cover to the Labour Government repeatedly and consistently” ACPO officers engage in “gratuitous photocalls” with Gordon Brown and other ministers.
• ACPO receives £18 million a year from the Home Office, publicly and privately lobbies against a number of key Conservative issues, going far beyond its role.
• Despite claiming to be an independent body that acts in the public interest, analysis of its statements shows almost no criticism of the current Government.
• ACPO accrued operational policing roles in counter-terrorism, civil emergencies, intelligence gathering and ports policing.
• ACPO has created subsidiary companies providing criminal record checks, security advice and road safety training.
• ACPO stands accused of “bankrolling a ‘gravy train’ of ex-police officers who retire with a substantial police pension and then take up either consultancy work or full-time employment with ACPO
• Few understand that ACPO is a private company, funded by a Home Office grant and money from 44 police authorities.
• Despite its important role in drafting and implementing policies that affect the fundamental freedoms of this country, ACPO has until recent changes been protected from freedom of information requests and its proceedings remain largely hidden from public view.
• ACPO spent millions of pounds from the public purse meant for counter-terrorism work, on luxury London flats for senior officers.
• Sells information from the Police National Computer for up to £70 - even though it pays just 60p to access the details.
• ACPO pay & bonus scandal would overshadow the MP's expenses fiasco
• Sir Hugh Orde stated that voters can’t be trusted. In an unbelievably patronising
  statement, he claimed that there are “no votes in protecting people from terrorism, from organised crime and from serial rapists that cross the country”.
• Sir Hugh complained that the police would become "politicised", yet the group over which he presides has spent years behaving in a quasi-political way, making statements intended to support this government policy or undermine that one.
• ACPO - rank officers can be found at Home Office press conferences and their
  comments are often helpfully attached to government press releases. They are up to their necks in politics.
• Sir Hugh's intervention is itself overtly political. So it is a bit rich for him to complain about the politicisation of the police.
• THe NPIA Chief Executive Peter Neyroud is the £195,000 a year boss of the Agency.
• Mr Neyroud’s employment package includes a Westminster apartment — in a block that has a gym, pool, sauna and valet parking — within walking distance of the agency offices. It cost the taxpayer £23,200 in 2008-09.
• As a perk of the job, the flat has an income tax demand of approximately £9,000 a year, which the NPIA confirmed it has paid for a number of years.
• The NPIA is spends £19 million a year on consultants and recently employed an external contractor as its director of resources, paying him £296,000 — including accommodation costs — not a bad little number for seven months work.
• The Agency senior managers have faced criticism before. They shared £82,000 in bonuses in 2008-09 and Peter Holland, its chairman, claimed £46,000 expenses in two years — including £2,800 on meals at the RAC Club in Pall Mall.
• Mr Neyroud lives in Oxford, 45 miles from London. Oxford is within easy commuting distance.
• 2032 staff 1258 permanent, 64 Home Office staff, 266 seconded officers, 444 temp contractors with staff costs of £101,211,000 (£91million 07/08)
• They are owed £34,850,000 [most recent published accounts]
• They owe £71,729,000
• Cash in bank and at hand £5,245,000
• Cash in bank/at hand same time 2008 £42,254,000
• Fixed and current assets total £345million
• Deducting liabilities, the balance sheet is positive to the tune of £257million
• Total Costs £285,870,000
• Total Income £49,784,000
• Deficit -£236,086,000
• A few months after stories about his lavish perks, and perhaps a few months before a new government reviews the existence of his fiefdom, Peter Neyroud has announced his intention to step down as chief executive of the NPIA
• Within a day or so of Mr Neywoud announcing his departure, it can be no coincidence that he has chosen the same time to conduct a media interview in which he now urges the Government to agree to an independent examination of what it is the public requires of the police and the right structures to fulfill those requirements.
• It appears somewhat strange that this interview is timed on the approach to an election where the balance of power may shift and his Quango may well come under closer critical scrutiny.
• Within days of Peter Neyroud announcing his departure from the NPIA the Chairman, Peter Holland has now also announced that he will leave in September. All a bit convenient at best, suspiciously coincidental to say the least, to lose two key figures
  from the top of an organisation in the immediate aftermath of a General Election. Or perhaps they've been reading the runes and reckon that the quango's future is less than secure?
• It seems that certain individuals within this gravy train culture are fearful that a Royal Commission or new Government might derail the train, reveal the secrets they would rather be kept from public view about waste and inappropriate spending and the disproportionate presence the bodies represent in the political system.
• Mr Neyroud has recently given public support to Sir Hugh Orde's comments about policing needing a review. Hardly surprising, as we have noted from the NPIA website that Sir Hugh Orde, as well as being President of ACPO is also an NPIA Board Member.
• Most police authorities are failing to set priorities for local forces and do not ensure value for money.
• A joint investigation of ten authorities in England and Wales by the Audit Commission and the Inspectorate of Constabulary found only mixed performance, with the majority of authorities performing only adequately overall.
• The ten authorities oversee £6bn of spending every year – or 44% – of the total annual policing budget, with one force, the Metropolitan Police Service, spending half of that sum. 
• None of the nine received the top rating for value for money, with eight rated ‘adequate’. Two were rated ‘poor’ for their scrutiny of local policing.
• Authorities are not yet demonstrating that they can respond to the many multifarious demands  that are placed on them. there is very little evidence even of police authorities performing well, let alone excellently.

National funding

The centralised model of police funding is a mess, eroding local accountability and inhibiting police forces from spending money where it would be most useful. It removes the incentive to spend effectively and efficiently, and denies local residents a say in how much they pay for their policing, and what its priorities should be.

Accountability

Striking the correct balance between efficiency and accountability is central to public service reform. Unlike other services such as health and education, which are consumed by individual patients or pupils, policing is a public good and not subject to choice as a method of providing accountability. Consumer power can therefore only be exercised through a popular election.

Local accountability

Political debate about crime in England and Wales has been restricted to point-scoring and blame games. The lack of accountability, and the need for politicians to be seen to be “doing something about crime” has created a culture of short-termism and knee-jerk reaction.

It has resulted in the trading of meaningless statistics, accusations of interference and seemingly limitless centrally-directed initiatives.

The answer must involve getting the government out of the job of policing. The politicisation of the force must be tackled, with the removal of targets, not merely the promise of it as it presently stands.

A local tax to pay for the basic command unit and a commander who is selected by and answerable to taxpayers, whether through local government or even direct elections, would give the public that power. It would certainly put an end to the dangerous politicisation of our police force and the continuing alienation of the public.

The existing tripartite model of Home Office, Chief Constable & Police Authority needs a thorough overhaul. In place since 1964, its continuing value and fitness for purpose must be questioned if true reform is to be achieved.

A NEW SYSTEM OF GOVERNANCE
 
Despite the difficulties and problems that exist within ACPO, the APA and NPIA, we would not dismiss the potential for providing real value to the tax payer. It seems that many of their responsibilities and purposes are blurred and overlap, are duplicated or contradict the ideal of a single focus.
 
To read the full report, see our conclusions and suggested recommendations click here

NATIONAL POLICE IMPROVEMENT AGENCY : YET MORE SCANDALOUS WASTE

LATEST TOP COP SAILING THE GRAVY BOAT OF LUXURY AT THE TAXPAYERS EXPENSE

This is one police story that won't dissolve into the media ether in a hurry.

To begin with, let us examine what the NPIA is, and what it's supposed to do.


The NPIA stands for the National Police Improvement Agency. According to its website at http://www.npia.police.uk/

"Policing is vital to public safety, NPIA is part of the police service. Our purpose is to make a valuable contribution to improving public safety".

It goes on . . . .

"We provide a large and diverse portfolio of products and services designed to support the police service and wider policing family. Our market operates both in the UK and internationally. As a policing organisation we act as a central resource to ACPO and police forces, working with authorities and the Home Office to help improve the way policing works".

The NPIA has a variety of roles in policing, including stewardship of the DNA database and rolling out new technology and communications systems across the service.

The 'About Us' page on their website states "The NPIA was formed in April 2007, its purpose being to make a unique contribution to improving public safety".

The NPIA's purpose is to make a unique contribution to public safety. The business plan for 2009-10 sets out what they plan to do to achieve this and the objectives against which their performance will be measured.

It has been developed against a backdrop of changes to the police service and in society due to the economic slowdown. These things mean they need a business plan that is flexible and far-sighted.

Last year they promised to develop a strategy to cover all their work. The resulting National Improvement Strategy for Policing (NISP) is what they have based their business plan on. The aim is that NISP will help partners in ACPO, APA and the Home Office to take a long-term view about the police.

The NPIA Capabilities are listed as :-


• Strengthening leadership in the service at all levels
• Developing the skills and professionalism of the workforce
• Implementing effective operational processes, practice and doctrine
• Increasing the efficiency of service delivery by forces
• Transforming the way information, evidence, knowledge and science is used
• Continuously improving the delivery of national services
• Enhancing the UK's role in global security.

This all sounds very commendable on paper. The NPIA is tasked with the job of increasing police efficiency and to improve standards within the service. It would not seem unreasonable to expect that the agency charged with this important responsibility, should lead by example, setting the highest moral standards.

The Times newspaper recently revealed that in fact the NPIA, rather than setting a fine example to the service, is disgracing it still further with its “gravy boat” culture at the very top of British policing.


Let's start with its Chief Constable, Peter Neyroud (pictured above).

Mr Neyroud is the £195,000 a year boss of the Agency. Not an unreasonable salary you might think, taking into account the level of responsibility associated with the position. However, Mr Neyroud’s employment package includes a Westminster apartment — in a block that has a gym, pool, sauna and valet parking — within walking distance of the agency offices. It cost the taxpayer £23,200 in 2008-09.

As a perk of the job, the flat has an income tax demand of approximately £9,000 a year, which the NPIA confirmed it has paid for a number of years. Sources from Revenue & Customs described the situation as “unusual” and pointed out that if the NPIA was paying Mr Neyroud’s tax bill that amounted to another perk, which was also liable to tax.

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the campaign group, the Taxpayers’ Alliance condemned the package saying “It is appalling that this quango is spending taxpayers’ money on swanky accommodation for their top brass while frontline policing struggles to get the job done on limited resources. The NPIA shouldn’t be handing out these generous benefits at all, and it certainly shouldn’t be trying to cover the cost of tax on them as well. Taxpayers and ordinary police officers are incredibly frustrated by this kind of waste.”

The NPIA is spends £19 million a year on consultants and recently employed an external contractor as its director of resources, paying him £296,000 — including accommodation costs — not a bad little number for seven months work.

The Agency senior managers have faced criticism before. They shared £82,000 in bonuses in 2008-09 and earlier this year Peter Holland, its chairman, claimed £46,000 expenses in two years — including £2,800 on meals at the RAC Club in Pall Mall.

An NPIA spokesman defended the provision of a second home for Mr Neyroud and his deputy, stating that his family home is more than 120 miles from London. In fact, it seems that Mr Neyroud's permanent home is actually 50 miles from London and in an area where many London commuters live.

One Oxford resident commented in the Times : “Neyroud lives in Oxford and was our chief constable. That’s 45 miles from London, not the 120 listed. Oxford is within easy commuting distance. I and tens of thousands of others do it every day without the need for public subsidy or our tax bills paid. I do not think I have seen a worse case of public sector greed”.

Closer examination of the most recent NPIA accounts make interesting reading too.

• 2008-09 accounts show Mr Neyroud was paid £190-195,000 p.a. with benefits in kind of £14,331.
• His lump sum pension at age 60 £600-605,000
• The role of Director of Resources was filled by Donald Muir, a contractor, from 1 July 2008 until 15 February 2009. Fees for this service, including accommodation costs met by the NPIA, amounted to £296,000.
• The Director of Resources, John Beckerleg, left on 30 June 2008 and received a severence payment, including lieu of notice, of £64,000.
• The Chief Executive Officer (Neyroud) and Deputy Chief Executive Officer (Barker-McCardle ) are provided with accommodation as part of their role. The cost of this, in 2008/09, was £23,200 and £22,900 respectively.
• The NPIA is currently reviewing the tax treatment and will bear any tax that may fall due.
• Jim Barker-McCardle (Deputy) was paid £160-165,000
• His lump sum pension at age 60 £505-510,000
• Peter Holland, Chairman was paid £95-100,000
• 4 other senior management are collectively paid £535-555,000
• 2032 staff (Why??) 1258 permanent, 64 Home Office staff, 266 seconded officers, 444 temp contractors with staff costs of £101,211,000 (£91million 07/08)
• They own land and buildings worth £70,762,000 {Inc Bramshill}(conveniently similar to the £70million Alan Johnson wants to knock off the overtime bill). Private sector businesses often sell property and have it rented back to them to realise cash (called sale & leaseback).
• They own dwellings worth £3,062,000 & vehicles worth £1,549,000
• Plant & machinery £3,580,000
• Communications equipment £138,142,000
• IT Hardware £28,710,000
• Web Development £1,020,000
• Fixtures & fittings £6,797,000
• ANTIQUES £2,113,000
• Assets Under Contruction (?) £21,445,000

Total Tangible Assets £278,361,000

• They are owed £34,850,000
• They owe £71,729,000
• Cash in bank and at hand £5,245,000
• Cash in bank/at hand same time 2008 £42,254,000
• Fixed and current assets total £345million
• Deducting liabilities, the balance sheet is positive to the tune of £257million

THIS BIT IS INTERESTING …..

The following are services that the NPIA should be charging out more than they cost to deliver, but look at this :-

Fees and Charges

COSTS TO NPIA

• Fingerprint identification (IDENT1) 32,973,000
• Police National Computer (PNC) 29,526,000
• National DNA Database (NDNAD) 9,517,000
• Project support charges 42,709,000
• Other information services 70,918,000
• Information services 185,643,000
• Exams and Assessment 5,427,000
• Learning and Development Services 16,840,000
• Leadership Development Services 6,646,000
• Other people and development services 12,290,000
• People and development services 41,203,000
• Property recharges 22,432,000,000
Total Costs £285,870,000

INCOME FROM CHARGING FOR THESE SERVICES :-

Total Income £49,784,000

Deficit -£236,086,000
In short, from the accounts, it appears that they are spending hundreds of millions more than they receive in fees and grants from forces and the Home Office.

If this were a private sector company, some serious questions would need to be asked. They do not appear to be generating surplus (profit) at all, and as such the £236million deficit on services would appear to be a direct taxpayer drain.

There were suggestions on the Times site for a Home Office Investigation to be conducted. This would be totally wrong. Any enquiry should be independent of political influence.

The Times article received many positive posts from readers, a number of whom were sympathetic with the frontline officers who are being well and truly stiffed rotten by the Chiefs.

There was a time when the distinction of high rank in public service, together with the job security and the prospect of a gong, was thought compensation enough for a chief constable’s modest pay. But now that is clearly no longer enough for them.

Alas, the same is true everywhere in the upper echelons of the state sector, where the spirit of public service has been supplanted by naked greed.

There is undoubtedly a great deal of good work done by ACPO, the APA and the NPIA. However, for public confidence to be fully restored, accountability must begin at the top, with full transparency and independent scrutiny of each agency to assess its viability and value to the srvice and tax paying public.

On the basis on what we have seen here and revealed in previous reports view here and here there is a lot of dirty washing that needs airing before any progress will be made.

CRIME MAPPING - IS POLICE RECORDED CRIME A TRUE MEASURE?

Click on the map above to see full size.

An interactive map offering detailed crime statistics on every street in England and Wales crashed hours after its launch today.


Users in London, Yorkshire, Humberside and Manchester were unable to access the detailed online map.

Those attempting to visit the site, http://maps.police.uk/  were shown an automated message saying it was temporarily unavailable.

The teething problems surfaced as Home Office minister David Hanson officially unveiled the website during a visit to a regeneration project in south west London. He was joined by National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) deputy chief executive Steve Mortimore, whose colleagues drew up the map.

The website aimed to offer members of the public unprecedented access to information about crimes taking place in their neighbourhood. The national map follows on the heels of regional versions created by the 43 forces across England and Wales.

Users should be able to access figures on levels of burglary, robbery, violence, vehicle crime and anti-social behaviour. They can also compare one area against another and compare figures against the same period the previous year to see if crime is getting better or worse. The website also offers messages from senior officers and links to local policing priorities and information about forthcoming crime-fighting events.

A Home Office spokesman said: "The high level of public interest in the new national crime map has put temporary pressure on the website. Urgent work is under way to resolve this and the website should be working again shortly."

The launch of the “Crime Mapping” facility, http://maps.police.uk/ unites the crime statistics of the 43 police forces of England & Wales  under one software banner for the first time.

This is long overdue. Only yesterday an article posted on this site complained that the Home Office were allowing 8 forces responsible for 40% of the population and 48% of crime to use their own software. Cynical perhaps, but we suspected that this was yet another Home Office strategy to prevent the general public from accessing the full picture of current recorded crime, and also continuing the “fudging” of figures.

After the shaky start when the facility kept freezing up, it started to work more efficiently this evening. We have attached a composite report of the 43 forces current recorded crime for Burglary, Car Crime, Robbery and All recorded crime. On completion, we are not one bit convinced that the police recording of crime is now an accurate reflection of crime in the UK.

A few observations.

• The “All Crime” monthly average for the most recent three months is 357,365 incidents

• On that basis, the full year forecast will be 4,288,380 crimes

• In 2008 the recorded crime incident was 4,703,814 (-415,434)

• Will we be expected to believe a crime reduction of 13.4% ??

• This is more than a months full crime reporting for the nation!

• In 2008 as in previous years, the BCS estimates of crime were over twice that of recorded crime

• Front line officers tell us that if anything, the volume of crime is increasing NOT decreasing

• Crimes are often misclassified… robbery downgraded to theft, car theft included in burglary when keys are stolen on egress

• How many crimes are not now reported as such, if the victim does not insist? (Citizen focus?)

• Has public confidence sunk so low that they have simply lost all faith in reporting?

• The BCS last year suggested that reporting had dropped as low as 33% for some offences, to 38% overall

To quote from the Home Office BCS : “For the crime types it covers, the BCS provides a better reflection of the true extent of household and personal crime than police recorded statistics because the survey includes crimes that are not reported to or recorded by the police. The primary purpose of the BCS is to provide national level analysis but some headline figures are available at regional and police force area level. The BCS is also a better indicator of long-term trends than police recorded crime because it is unaffected by changes in levels of reporting to the police or police recording practices”.

• This implies that the Government will place importance on police recorded crime only when it suits them. i.e. If recorded crime shows a decrease, with all the measures introduced to achieve that.

• The table below shows a steady decline in reporting of overall crime in the last 12 years, coincidentally the years of New Labour.

• Does this explain the “gap” of crimes that seem to have appeared in the reduction of reported crime?

• With so many new offences created, we are advised that it is simple to reallocate a reported offence to a lesser category.

• Section 5 Public Order Offences (crimeable) are now commonly demoted to drunk and disorderly (no crime report)

• Of those interviewed by BCS, 76% said they did not report because they felt the police would not/could not do anything

Click on table below to see larger image

• Is that what the CJS has come to, that the public won’t report because they have lost heart?

• Could this be a major contributory factor to the decrease in recorded crime?

• Has the massive surge in bureaucracy resulted in the massive misreporting of crime?

• How timely that the Government have pushed through the alignment of 43 forces data for current crime

• Are they planning yet another media spin about how crime has been dramatically decreased thanks to their effort?

• The recorded crime shows reductions of 5% burglary, 18% car crime, 7% for robbery and overall crime

• The target, performance and senior officer bonus culture will continue to “fudge” until stopped.

• We are guessing that a Home Office release will be imminent.

We wish we could accompany all of this skepticism with a dose of solutions, but unfortunately, we cannot yet see an answer. Clearly, the crime recording system is flawed and unreliable as a measure of crime. Detections are similarly distorted it would seem. It will be a courageous team that arrives at an acceptable solution that will encourage confidence to return, in the face of a Government and senior management teams that will apply many more dirty tricks to keep their noses buried in that trough. The BCS is only based on a trawl of 46,000 members of the public which hardly seems representative.

Dominic Grieve stated it so well. “We would advocate and support the proposal to make crime statistics properly independent. This would remove responsibility for compiling and publishing crime figures from the Home Office. The responsibility should be placed with the Office for National Statistics which is totally independent. The pre-release access that Ministers and political advisers get to crime statistics should be abolished – so the public would be the first to get an honest account of the facts. Any politician can talk about resuscitating public trust”.

The party that demonstrates their intentions and follows it up with decisive transparent and honest action that is genuinely in the public interest, will have the best chance of achieving it.

Crime Analysis Team

Nice 1 Limited