(But before I do, I will just add that I am not part of Tim’s campaign team and none of what I have been writing on this blog has been at his or any other official request. This blog is not an official Labour Party publication at all. These are just the musings and rants of someone who cares deeply about community safety and good policing in Thames Valley and everywhere else.)
A few days ago this image appeared on Tim’s campaign blog .
It was accompanied by text which identified one person in the picture as Balvinder Bains with the description “Slough’s Police Authority member”. This prompted an email from the Police Authority to Mr Bains which I reprint in full:
Dear Mr Bains
It has been brought of our attention that on Mr Starkey’s website the article entitled ‘Campaigning with Fiona Mactaggart in Slough’ posted on 17 September 2012 shows two pictures with you in both. One picture names you as “Slough’s Police Authority member”. This is in breach of the ‘Election of Police and Crime Commissioner Information and Candidate Management Policy’ and in particular to the following Candidate Management Principle as set out below:
‘When acting in their capacity as a Police Authority member, members must avoid any action which is or might reasonably be perceived as being supportive of any party, candidate or opinion, and must avoid putting themselves, the Authority or the Force in a position or situation which could be used by a party or a candidate in support of their campaign’
The Information and Candidate Management Policy has been approved by the Authority and the Chief Executive and Treasurer of the Authority reminded all members in his e-mail dated 6 July 2012 of that Policy which was attached to that reminder.
Please can you ensure that the pictures and associated text are withdrawn from Mr Starkey’s website with immediate effect and confirm that this has been actioned. Failure to do so will necessitate intervention by the Chief Executive and Treasurer of the Authority and/or the Police Area Returning Officer which, I am sure you will agree, is better avoided.Following this email, Tim and his team changed the text as you can read from the link above. Mr Bains is no longer named.
Meanwhile, as I have linked on several occasions (see below), Cllr Anthony Stansfeld (still, I believe, a member of the Police Authority) says on his Conservative Party campaign website the following:
For the last year Anthony Stansfeld has Chaired the performance Committee of the Police Authority, which sets targets for the police.Here is a pic to evidence this is currently on his website.
And so my open question to the Police Authority is: have you written to Cllr Stansfeld in a similar way? When he is no longer a PA member he will be outside the control of the PA, understandably. However, for the last few weeks he has been both a member of the PA and the nominated Conservative Party candidate. Have you asked him to remove all mention by him or about him on all websites he has control or influence over that he is Chair of a PA committee?
Because it seems to me that if the PA has not, then the Authority itself is not being impartial. Let’s review the words of the official Thames Valley Police Authority policy again:
‘When acting in their capacity as a Police Authority member, members must avoid any action which is or might reasonably be perceived as being supportive of any party, candidate or opinion, and must avoid putting themselves, the Authority or the Force in a position or situation which could be used by a party or a candidate in support of their campaign’
In what way is describing oneself on campaign websites as a member of the PA, chair of one of its key committees, and making claims as to one’s effectiveness as such not a) acting in the capacity and b) “reasonably be perceived as being supportive” of one particular party?
And let’s also review the final paragraph of the email to Mr Bains once more:
Please can you ensure that the pictures and associated text are withdrawn from Mr Starkey’s website with immediate effect and confirm that this has been actioned. Failure to do so will necessitate intervention by the Chief Executive and Treasurer of the Authority and/or the Police Area Returning Officer which, I am sure you will agree, is better avoided.
Within the bounds of ‘local bureaucratise’ that sounds pretty darn strong to me. (What do you think?)
So unless Thames Valley can evidence that they have written in similar terms and tones to Cllr Anthony Stansfeld (who may have decided not to respond of course) then I would contend that the Police Authority have not acted impartially. And indeed would have broken their own code.
I am not sure whether this means they have broken Home Office or Electoral Commission guidelines / statutory instruments or not. I am urgently seeking clarification from the Police Authority (a link to this blog is going to them as soon as I have published this with request that they look into this matter quickly). If I don’t hear from them in the next couple of working days I will be contacting the Home Office and Electoral Commission to ask for an urgent review of all of these matters to establish whether Electoral (or other) Law has not, is not and will not be broken.
Finally my last question to the Police Authority is: just who brought this to your attention? (This, by the way, is a Freedom of Information inquiry. I expect an answer within 20 working days or sooner if possible.)
I don’t often get angry when I write blog posts. But frankly, I am very annoyed about all of this. I hope that the Police Authority will be able to respond with detail and evidence so that all of my concerns can be allayed. If not, this will not be a fair election in my view. I already have my doubts that there is already not a level playing field given that Cllr Stansfeld has continued to have privileged access to Chief Officers and information (that the other candidates have not) by dint of him remaining a member of the PA. Unless they can show they have been even handed about all this, the playing field will tilted even more, in my opinion...
UPDATE: The Police Authority replied by late morning on Monday. I have reprinted their reply above together with my response back to them.
UPDATE 2: The correspondence continues: see above. TVPA responded to my further questions and I have replied to these.
‘When acting in their capacity as a Police Authority member, members must avoid any action which is or might reasonably be perceived as being supportive of any party, candidate or opinion, and must avoid putting themselves, the Authority or the Force in a position or situation which could be used by a party or a candidate in support of their campaign’
In what way is describing oneself on campaign websites as a member of the PA, chair of one of its key committees, and making claims as to one’s effectiveness as such not a) acting in the capacity and b) “reasonably be perceived as being supportive” of one particular party?
And let’s also review the final paragraph of the email to Mr Bains once more:
Please can you ensure that the pictures and associated text are withdrawn from Mr Starkey’s website with immediate effect and confirm that this has been actioned. Failure to do so will necessitate intervention by the Chief Executive and Treasurer of the Authority and/or the Police Area Returning Officer which, I am sure you will agree, is better avoided.
Within the bounds of ‘local bureaucratise’ that sounds pretty darn strong to me. (What do you think?)
So unless Thames Valley can evidence that they have written in similar terms and tones to Cllr Anthony Stansfeld (who may have decided not to respond of course) then I would contend that the Police Authority have not acted impartially. And indeed would have broken their own code.
I am not sure whether this means they have broken Home Office or Electoral Commission guidelines / statutory instruments or not. I am urgently seeking clarification from the Police Authority (a link to this blog is going to them as soon as I have published this with request that they look into this matter quickly). If I don’t hear from them in the next couple of working days I will be contacting the Home Office and Electoral Commission to ask for an urgent review of all of these matters to establish whether Electoral (or other) Law has not, is not and will not be broken.
Finally my last question to the Police Authority is: just who brought this to your attention? (This, by the way, is a Freedom of Information inquiry. I expect an answer within 20 working days or sooner if possible.)
I don’t often get angry when I write blog posts. But frankly, I am very annoyed about all of this. I hope that the Police Authority will be able to respond with detail and evidence so that all of my concerns can be allayed. If not, this will not be a fair election in my view. I already have my doubts that there is already not a level playing field given that Cllr Stansfeld has continued to have privileged access to Chief Officers and information (that the other candidates have not) by dint of him remaining a member of the PA. Unless they can show they have been even handed about all this, the playing field will tilted even more, in my opinion...
UPDATE: The Police Authority replied by late morning on Monday. I have reprinted their reply above together with my response back to them.
UPDATE 2: The correspondence continues: see above. TVPA responded to my further questions and I have replied to these.
No comments:
Post a Comment