Press launch of the scrutiny into the Met Police’s use of stop and search – for which I was the vice-chair.

There had been a fuss at the last minute because Sir John Stevens, the Met’s Commissioner, said he would only agree to accept the 50+ recommendations if we changed the first one. The first recommendation said the Met Police Commissioner was committed to removing racial bias where it was found. He wanted it changed to ‘if’ it was found. I had a big problem with this, as the findings of the whole report was unquestionably that there was racial bias in stop and search – and the change to ‘if’ would make it seem as if there was a possibility that this was not the case.

Anyway, when I got there, Cecile Right – who was the chair – told me what a terrible week she had had with powers that be trying to stop this and that. I gave her a hug – told her off for not calling me – and in we went.

She was great. I adore Cecile and am sorry she is leaving the MPA at the end of this term in a couple of weeks. The press conference went really well and the really good news is that a GOLD group (special action group with top status) is to be set up to steer the recommendations through. Cecile will be on this (and hopefully me too).

The full report if you’re interested is on the MPA website.

Lunch to celebrate the end of the first term of office for the MPA hosted by the Met.

We all had first to have our photo taken (at New Scotland Yard) as a group and then up to ‘Peelers’ for our lunch. There were a series of presentations to members of the MPA who were stepping down – but there were also presentations to all of us for the first term.

It was so very Met police-ish – kind of service awards – but very sweet. So I am now the proud owner of a Met Police paperweight with my years of service scripted within and a police shield. Establishment or what!

I even gave Sir John a peck on the cheek (reciprocated) when I left. Don’t know if it’s PC or not to kiss the commissioner.

Off to Islington as link member for the Metropolitan Police Authority for the Chair of the MPA’s borough visit. The local commander updates us (the MPA) on what is happening in the borough. But the real interest was the gossip that Labour are going to play fast and loose with the GLA list.

The GLA member for the area, Meg Hillier, has been selected for a safe Labour seat at the General Election. If she stands for the GLA elections in June and then steps down at the General – this will cause a by-election for the GLA seat. It would obviously be better for Labour if this didn’t happen.

But the stories are that she doesn’t want to not stand in June – even if it does then cause a by-election after the general election. However, the rumour now is that she will be switched to the GLA list (where if you leave the Assembly during the term of office, there is no by-election but simply replacement by the next person on the list) and that they will put another Labour member from the current list to stand for the constituency GLA seat.

Don’t know if it is true or will actually happen, but wouldn’t surprise me as Labour use their list members to meet their control and command needs – nothing to do with being elected to their position on the list. Unlike the LibDems where we are on the list by the virtue of one member one vote across London and any fiddling with positions on the list by the centre would be tantamount to war.

No such qualms in Labour. Fixing is a way of life for them!

Battle stations! A meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) with a hot, hot item on the agenda.

At a meeting of a sub-committee of the Authority, a majority vote granted funding to eight Haringey police officers to apply for judicial review of a coroner’s verdict of unlawful killing on the death of Roger Sylvester in custody. The eight are currently suspended following that verdict.

Coming from Haringey myself, where there has been more than one black death in custody – I am acutely aware of the community’s opinion of policing and discrimination.

My colleague on the MPA Graham Tope is one of the ones that voted the funding for the officers through. Having taken advice – it would seem that the situation is that there is a presumption to fund officers to fight their legal case if what they are accused of happened whilst they were carrying out their job.

The Home Office guidance, which I read, appears to allow ‘discretion’ on the part of police authorities but advises that the presumption is in favour of funding.

All the night before I am mulling over the rights and wrongs of all of this. I want to fulfill my duty as a member of the MPA but feel very strongly that I cannot simply vote through funding that if taken to its conclusion may result in the verdict (although having to be redone) being overturned – when I feel that this man did die because of rough handling.

On the other side – if (as is the case) a judge believes that there were so many flaws in the legal process that he has given the officers leave to apply for judicial review – then I as a member of the Police Authority must facilitate justice.

In the meeting we are given legal advice to guide us – it helps not one bit – and end up juggling ‘discretion in terms of duty to fund’ versus ‘our responsibility under the GLA act to have consideration to the effect of our actions in terms of equalities’.

It is clear that every single member of the Authority will speak on this. As we go around the table there are many and very strong views. When we come to Peter Herbert, a black member and judge, he gives an impassioned speech against the funding – but appears to go completely over the top and other members feel insulted by his angry rant. He later says that he just was so angry he could not help himself. He is completely supported by Cindy Butts who speaks next and says that if we (the authority) make a decision to fund the officers and the Sylvester family, who are present, that is a cop out.

I didn’t feel it was a cop out – I thought it was a just solution – and in the end that is the way the authority voted. We will fund both the officers and the family (if the latter is legally possible – and if it isn’t, then we will fund neither).

For myself – I felt it my duty to facilitate justice and would fund officers to defend themselves. I cannot imagine that had these been black officers that there would be any question of not funding them. However, I believed it equally my duty to make sure that the family could fight this on equal terms by funding them. Perhaps, more to the point for me, was that I do not want any question mark hanging over the coroners’ verdict. It was a milestone in race relations with the police that this verdict was arrived at. If it survives a judicial review and a re-verdict – then no one will be able to question its authority and only then will the force and the politicians look at the issue around restraint and how to quantify ‘reasonable’.

I think we came to the right solution – but there in the room was a lot of real nastiness and many agendas on display. I sometimes feel quite despairing about race relations. You can only ever succeed if you deal absolutely straight with what is – and the forces of evil are definitely around on both sides on this one.

Dash off to Performance, Planning and Review Committee at the MPA – the fun never stops.

The big hoo-ha and the reason for all the cameras and the media interest is a report which reveals that police response times to 999 calls has worsened as has peoples’ satisfaction with the action they take when they do come.

Moreover, the tables at the back of the report which show performance on 999 calls by borough and indicate that if you live in wealthy Westminster the police will arrive much more quickly than if you live in the poorer areas like Newham or Hounslow. Post-code policing again! It makes the evening news.

Point is – the Met and I have been fighting for the last four years on this and despite all the extra resources going into the police performance is still worsening. London has a right to expect an emergency response to be there quickly, for the officers to know what they are doing when they arrive and for there to be equal (barring traffic conditions) treatment across London.

So question raised – unanswered by the Met officers at meeting. They are requested to bring forward a report to next meeting explaining their poor performance.

Behind the scenes I am told that the Met tried to get the paper withdrawn.

Chair of the Met Police Authority, Toby Harris’s annual visit to Haringey Borough today. Trumpets please!

I attend this as a Haringey councillor. Despite living in Haringey, Toby has continually rejected my pleas to be the link MPA member for Haringey – although almost all other members of the MPA are given their own patch to work on. Why not me? Answer – I’m not Labour!

Not sure what these meetings actually achieve, but they do bring together the crime and policing partners in the borough and give a small opportunity to raise issues.

Leave meeting at appropriate time to meet car from BBC – BBC London had telephoned me desperate to get me onto lunchtime news regarding falling standards in police response.

No car there. Switch on mobile to find they have decided to take senior police officer rather than me. Just the way news it – but will be coming with cameras to afternoon meeting.

Call in from Andrew Clark of the Guardian re congestion charging. It’s coming up to one year since implementation and there will be a lot of media review over the next week. He asks what I would improve. The main thing would be allowing 24 hours to pay after 7pm on day of entry. Lots of honest people get caught by this and with such high penalty charges have no chance to rectify omission or forgetfulness. It’s a great scheme – but still relatively customer hostile.

This morning’s meeting of the Met Police Authority (MPA) opened with a discussion on the Secret Policeman programme screened by the BBC. There was much breast beating, and to be fair – the Met and the MPA have been ‘determined’ to stamp out racism in the Met. But they have clearly failed judging by the revelations in the show.

I wasn’t hugely shocked by the programme myself. I have always believed that we are only a breath away from the uncivilised – and that racism runs deep in the Met. But I am hopeful that the voices are sincere and that recruits will be screened more thoroughly and that training and follow-through improves.

However, where I took my leave of the Met’s Sir John Stevens statement that the Met must be exemplar – and more so than any other body – was that whilst I do believe you may be able to screen out the worst of it, I don’t believe you can completely eradicate it.

What I do expect, is that the professional standards expected of our officers overrides any unacceptable underlying views, and that any overt racist behaviour or comment be absolutely unacceptable to any officer of the Met if he or she witnesses it.

A culture of acceptance or collusion must be expelled. It would never be accepted in the teaching profession. It would be reported and the individual sacked – so it should be in the police force.