IT is one of the ironies of the government's proposals for directly-elected police commissioners that public indifference to the idea is in stark contrast to the importance voters place on crime and safety.

(You see the same with Europe and voter turnout in the EU elections).

So, if the forecasts of pollsters are credible, turnout in tomorrow's ballot looks like being pretty dismal although there are some surveys suggesting that it might not be as bad as some fear.

Read our special report on the elections and find out who the candidates are

Plenty of people dislike the concept of elected commissioners and are uneasy about the idea that politicians who have to serve the twin interests of their party and residents may be in charge of such an important public service.

Many others remain thoroughly confused by what is going on and are labouring under the misapprehension that they are voting for American-style sheriffs, who will have control of the police force on a day-to-day basis.

Even some of Kent's candidates have failed to grasp the distinction between their strategic role, outlining pledges that stray into the chief constable's territory.

The government has to shoulder some responsibility for this confusion and apathy. It has not done as much as it should to promote the elections and explain clearly what they are about.

But this week's ballot is not on the government's handling of its flagship policy, much as some want it to be.

It is about who you think is the best person to do the job of ensuring Kent Police is keeping the streets, towns and villages safe and making sure that taxpayers are getting value for money.

And while there are undoubtedly imperfections in the arrangements for commissioners, the policy, for the first time, gives voters a direct say in who they want to do that job.

No-one has ever voted for anyone to be on the police authorities and the checks and balances on what they did were pretty non-existent.

Police commissioners, on the other hand, will have to be more transparent and accountable to residents. They will also be answerable to independent crime panels, who will be able to summon them to account - in public - about their decisions.

So, many may not like the idea but it would be wrong to stay at home as a way of registering disapproval.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Making a prediction on the result appears to be beyond even those involved in masterminding their candidates' election campaigns.

The low turnout, coupled with a new voting system involving second preferences could skew the outcome in unpredictable ways.

For what it is worth, I would be surprised if any of Kent's six candidates win by securing a majority on first preferences.

Which brings us to which two candidates will make it through to the final round and the tricky issue of where second preference votes will go.

Best guess? There will be a run-off between the independent candidate Ann Barnes and the Conservative Craig Mackinlay.

But knowing where second preferences will go is virtually impossible. Possible scenarios? The Conservatives may pick up second preference votes from UKIP supporters - whose campaign has bordered on invisibility - and some of those backing the English Democrats.  

There is no natural second home for Labour supporters but I would guess they will go for an independent candidate (if they use it) as a strategy to stop the Conservatives winning.

Liberal Democrats have no candidate but it's a stretch to think they will back a Conservative or Labour candidate and are most likely to go for an independent and that will be Ann Barnes. Some may opt for Dai Liyanage who is a former Liberal.

One thing that could tip the scales is postal votes. Ann Barnes sent out a personal letter with the postal voting pack and her team believe it has paid dividends. For some reason, the Conservatives did not and feel they may have missed a trick.

Given all the uncertainties, perhaps the only safe thing to predict is that by Friday we will have Kent's first-directly elected police and crime commissioner...

One of the many arguments advanced for  elected police commissioners  is that they will improve the accountability of police forces and will replace the bureaucratically-appointed police authorities.

It is claimed that as they are directly-elected, commissioners will be much more responsive to the public's concerns around policing.

You only have to read some of the candidates' policy pledges to see that this is something they are already attuned to, with many committing to populist policies like putting victims first, dealing with low level anti-social behaviour and being less harsh on motorists.

But if  you want greater accountability, you generally need greater transparency and arrangements for strong checks and balances in the system. Which is where the Kent and Medway Police and Crime Panel come in.

This panel, already operating in shadow form, is an important part of the new arrangements.  Its primary job will be to hold the elected commissioner to account - on behalf of the public. It will have strong statutory powers to call the commissioner to meetings, question them about decisions and policy and additonally can veto the commissioner's budget and the appointment of a chief constable.

Which is all to be welcomed, especially as these sessions will generally be held in public.

When it comes to what information the commissioner will be required to provide to the panel, the statutory requirements again appear robust.

The key word here is "appear." A document setting out the protocols - called the Information Sharing Agreement - has just been published and will be considered by the panel next week.

It raises some issues for me about whether there could be too much leeway for commissioners to withold from the panel information they have asked for and whether important discussions around the commissioner's activities could take place behind closed doors.

First, the positives: the protocol states that the panel will be able to review any decision taken by a commissioner and those decisions will have to be published by the commissioner. There will be regular performance reports to the panel as well as reports on a range of subjects from the budget, complaints and the police and crime plan.

The panel will additionally be able to request information "on an ad-hoc and unplanned basis" to help it  "scrutinise the actions of the commissioner." 

However, there are qualifications around such requests for information. The protocol says the information must be "reasonably required" by the panel. Unfortunately, there is no definition in the legislation of this - and it will be for the commissioner or their representative to determine whether a request is reasonable or not.

More concerning is the section of the protocol headed "Incidences when information will not be shared." Clearly, it is hard to counter the argument that information will not be disclosed where it might compromise the force's operational ability to tackle crime.

But the document states that "members of the commissioner's staff are not required to disclose to the panel..evidence or documents containing advice given to the PCC. This also includes political and legal advice."  

Suppose a chief constable was to advise a commissioner that a policy proposal, or spending commitment might be unviable or have adverse consequences for crime detection? Under the protocol, any written advice could be witheld.

Suppose a force chief executive was to advise a commissioner that their action strayed over into operational affairs rather than strategic ones? Again, it need not be shared with the panel.

It also states the panel will have no powers to "request information from the Force...other than general rights under the Freedom of Information Act" - which presumably means that police chiefs, including the chief constable, could not be asked about anything - something that the soon-to-be-scrapped police authorities do at their meetings. (It is not clear at all whether the panel has any powers to summon the chief constable to answer questions).

Another section, headed "Requests for information to be exempt from public disclosure" states that the commissioner will be entitled to request that information provided to the panel "is not published or [be considered] exempt from public disclosure".

It adds that while the commissioner "recognises the Panel has a duty to operate in an open and transparent manner, there is certain information which is sensitive in nature and which would not be appropriately released in the public domain."

Where the panel accedes, the sensitive information may be debated in "closed session."

The protocol emphasises that these occasions will be the exception to the rule but even so, it appears that there are loopholes that could allow our elected commissioner to be less accountable than they should.

If elected police commissioners are to gain public confidence , it is important they discharge their duties in as open and accountable way as possible.

That applies equally to the panel charged with scrutinising what commissioners are up to.

Read the Information Sharing Agreement here:

kentpccpanel.pdf (139.45 kb)

IT looked like it was becoming a crowded field but the race to become Kent's first elected police commissioner has lost one of its hopefuls just weeks away from polling day.

Independent candidate quits police commissioner race>>>

Independent candidate Ian Driver has quit and says he is doing so because he cannot find the money to run a campaign. It is not just a question of the £5,000 deposit - not necessarily refundable - all candidates need, he says.

On his calculations, the minimum a candidate will need is £30,000 just to get a leaflet to Kent's 1.2million voters.

So, are the odds stacked in favour of the main parties?

Financially as well as practically, they may be as they have access to foot soldiers in the form of activists, councillors and party supporters who - even when their party is unpopular - can usually be co-erced or cajoled into helping knock on doors, stuff envelopes and yes, dip ino their pockets to pay for meetings and literature.

Where does the independent candidate get access to that kind of support network from a standing start? It's worth noting that candidates in Kent, will under the Home Office rules be able to spend up to £228,338 each on their campaigns.

Independents can't even really get an upper hand through social media - everyone, including the main parties - is attuned to how useful that is now in generating interest.

Ian Driver, who had some interesting if controversial ideas, says he won't be the last to have to drop out because of the costs and I agree.

The irony is that the coalition said it wanted to encourage candidates from outside the political mainstream to stand but in many areas will have elections in which the front-runners will prove to be conventional party stalwarts from fairly traditional political backgrounds.

Is that what the Home Office hoped for? Cast your mind back to the Conservative party conference when Home Secretary Theresa May announced that Iraqi war veteran Tim Collins was in the frame for the Kent job as a Conservative candidate. He was, she said, an example of the kind of independent person the government wanted to stand for the job.

Collins lost interest but in one of his early interviews before opting out had said:

 It is important that it doesn't become just a talking shop for knackered old policemen or a sunset gig for some trough-loving councillor."

Perhaps the independents have one advantage.

It is that with a record low turnout predicted, a few could squeeze through the middle just as they have in council elections for directly-elected mayors.

No sooner had news filtered through that Cllr Craig Mackinlay had been chosen as the Conservative candidate for police commissioner, questions began to be asked.

Word spread that the turnout was paltry - I was told that 145 people turned up for the final selection meeting in Hoo.

Cllr Mackinlay said around 300 people had voted over three meetings - one of which was held on the same evening as England v France.

Given that the membership of the Conservative party in Kent probably numbers thousands, eyebrows are being raised. This is Tory country, every single MP here is blue.

I've picked up murmurings of disquiet about the method used to select Cllr Mackinlay. Members had to rank each candidate out of three (with one being best) so the person with "lowest" score won. I’m told the final tallies were: Mackinlay: 495, Jan Berry: 585, Francois Gordon: 628

Labour don't emerge unscathed either.

Amongst the criticism it was amusing to read Labour's press chief Cllr Tristan Osborne claim 300 people had decided on behalf of the residents of Kent - seemingly writing off the chances of his own party's candidate.

Having made clear their opposition to the role and what they see as the "polticising" of the police force, they've still decided to put forward candidates.

Indeed, the country's most high profile candidate is a Labour politician - John Prescott. It's left the party open to charges of hypocrisy - wanting to have their cake and eat it.

--

What a difference year makes.

When the Love Medway app was launched, community safety chief Cllr Mike O'Brien said it would "revolutionise the way residents are able to report environmental issues and the way our staff deal with them".

This past week, after it emerged the overwhelming majority of users are council staff (8,029 out of 8,809 uses) a council spokesman said: "The Love Medway app is primarily intended for council community officers on patrol but as it is downloadable to all Android and Blackberry phones we encourage residents to use it as well."

Having lost the Iraqi war veteran Tim Collins from the contest before it had begun, some may have thought that the race to become the Conservative candidate for the role of Kent's first elected police commissioner stood to become a damp squib.

Read our special report on elected police commissioners>>>>

But the final shortlist of three is more interesting than it might have been, notably because of the presence of Jan Berry, who was the national chair of the Police Federation for several years and then became a government adviser on cutting police red tape. She also rose through the ranks in the Kent force, which she joined in 1971 and retired 37 years later as a chief inspector.

So, no-one could say that she lacks relevant experience or expertise - although if I was the Kent chief constable, I might be a little disquieted at the prospect of having a former "shop steward" taking such a key role. On the other hand, rank and file police officers would probably be rather reassured at the idea. It's not entirely clear when Jan threw her hat in the ring with the Conservatives but she's certainly someone who, on paper, has a good CV.

The other two candidates are Francois Gordon, a former UK Ambassador to Aleria, the Ivory Coast and British High Commissioner to Uganda. He is also a European strategy adviser to Kent Police, although I have to admit I'm unclear what this entails.

The final name in the hat is that of Medway councillor Craig Mackinlay, who was brought up in Kent, trained as a chartered accountant and tax adviser and is now a partner in a Kent firm. He stood as a UKIP candidate in three general elections - the last for Gillingham in 2005 - and also stood as a candidate for the party in European elections before signing up with the Tories in 2005. (It will be interesting to see if UKIP decides to put up a candidate in the race).

The outcome should be known in a week after three hustings meetings have taken place.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It seems Kent Police are determined to adopt a low key approach to the Olympics.

At least, that is the conclusion I have drawn from a response the force made to a Freedom of Information request I submitted trying to elicit a few details about its contigency plans to deal with various security and transport issues.

Apparently, the force will adopt a "business as usual" procedures at spots such as Ebbsfleet station and the Channel Tunnel - advising me that these are strictly the responsibility of the Port of Dover Police and the British Transport Police anyway. As to immigration matters, "such specific details relating to these locations will therefore not be held by Kent Police" as they are primarily the responsibility of the Home Office and the UK Borders Agency.

When it comes to dealing with illegal or ad hoc camping sites "there are no plans held" and "any such matters will be dealt with on a case by case basis" - wait for it - "as business as usual."

When it comes to dealing with contingency plans to deal with an incident involving mass casualties or fatalities "there are no plans held by Kent Police...that relate specifically to the Olympics."

One step the force is taking however is to restrict police leave "to ensure that a maximum number are available for any increases in demand throughout Kent" - an interesting phrase as it does not even concede that there will, for the biggest event staged in the UK ever - be any increased demand for extra officers.

I am guessing the response is designed to be reassuring. But for some reason, I can't help thinking it's not.

Indeed, as the chairman of Kent Police Authority Ann Barnes put it in 2011 when she complained about the lack of extra funding for security coming Kent's way to deal with the Games:  

"There's a £500m security budget and not a single penny coming to Kent despite the fact that because of the geography we have a huge policing operation here."

"We don't have events but we have dozens of training camps, we're the gateway to Europe, and we'll have hundreds of thousands of people coming through the ports and the Channel Tunnel."

Indeed, as we reported recently, KCC has already voiced concerns about the influx of tens of thousands of visitors through the county and the prospect of disruption and congestion at key points of the transport network.

Read the Kent Police FOI response here  PoliceOlympics.pdf (240.22 kb)

I was soaking up the sun in the Eastern Desert last week when the scale of the impact of Britain's summer of discontent became clear.

Earlier in the day my wife and I had watched the BBC World Service showing the scenes in Croydon, Tottenham and various other London locations a couple of days before we were due to fly home.

Now Egyptians from our hotel were concerned that we were about to return to "lawless Britain" risking life and limb. It was, for them, a matter of major concern.

Never mind that in Cairo and elsewhere that thousands of Egyptians have been forcefully demonstrating against the old Mubarak regime and the replacement arrmy government.

Nor that Coptic (Christian) churches were regularly being bombed and burned by militants.

All are symptoms of Northern Hemisphere 2011.

Watching from 2,500 miles away, it appeared to us there was little action by the police. It bore a striking resemblance to that which greeted the Egyptians when they decided to end the Mubarak regime.

The holidaymakers were more concerned about relaxing than rioting.

What strikes me as different is that this time there were incidents in dozens of places.

And politicians seemed to have their own ways of explaining it.

To the BNP it was race riots.

To David Cameron and the Lib Dems it was a sign of a sick society.

To Labour it was - well, something with which to beat the Tory smoothies with their featherduster of vitriol.

To the police it was an opportunity to demonstrate that cuts in funding were having a detrimental impact.

To the public? - well, it was a chance to voice their own preferences (and in some cases to misbehave).

Of course for the courts it was an opportunity to demonstrate they are not under the thumb of the politicians - just give 'em back the power to use the birch.

Now I have returned home, and having seen that across our green and pleasant land trouble seems to have broken out everywhere ranging from Manchester and Liverpool through the Midlands to London's destruction and the bonfires in Rainham, it was somewhat unsurprising to this scribe.

Every 15 years or so there is some sort of misbehaviour in Britain. Tottenham, Handsworth, Merseyside .... the list goes on.

Regrettably, it will go on in future years.

Hose reels, evictions, arming the police, bussing them into London from South Wales to provide mobs of bobbies on every corner, kicking the police authorities because in a few months there were be elected police commissioners  ....

It's largely playing to the gallery.

What is needed is firmness, fairness and fast action when problems break out.

There is one lesson that can be learned from August 2011's thefts, firebombings and destruction.: leave them alone for a few hours and the mobs will always get the upper hand.

***

The last thing I thought when we visited El Gouna was that we would be constantly reminded of the Member of Parliament for Gillingham and Rainham.

But it was impossible to escape Mr Chishti - or at least echoes of him.

It was all caused by two Pakistani buses that had joined a small fleet of Egyptian saloons to provide the public transport around the holiday resort.

Flamboyant in the extreme, the buses had rockets on their roofs, mirrors on the inside coving and numerous images of plants, stars and symbols.

Why was Mr Chishti constantly brought to mind?

Because both buses had been built in Karachi by a bodybuilder named G N Chishti.

One thing I have to concede was that they were considerably more comfortable than the locally-built buses. They had upholstered seats. The locals had wooden slats...

The vultures are circling; the press is the enemy within. I will not regurgitate the allegations about the News of the World or the rumours surrounding other newspapers, this has been recycled for the last 72 hours; nor will articulate the political fallout – both David Cameron and Ed Miliband hired former News International employees (both have allegations about them). And Labour and Tories were both guests at a recent dinner party, hosted by Murdoch.

Instead, I wish to raise one point. The press in general. Limited reports are suggesting ordinary journalists are witnessing hostility from the public. Andrew Gilligan noted a wave of e-mails, criticising his work and abilities as a journalists, something he has never witnessed. According to Mr Gilligan he is not the only journalist to experience this.

McCarthyism-esque inquiries will damage our reputation as a democracy – a free press is fundamental to holding the government to account. Regulation on their abilities to conduct investigation journalism would be a disaster for Britain. Yes, the hacking scandal was immoral, but it was a failure of the criminal justice system. It was the Metropolitan Police which warned against a public inquiry and turned a blind eye to criminality at a variety of news papers.

Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. You might find the press irritating. But as Edmund Burke elegantly pointed out, the press are the fourth estate and the true guardians of liberty.

It's not often I do 124mph down a Kent motorway but yesterday was a bit different.

Sorry officer:

"I had cramp"..."I didn't realise"..."I'm late for a cross-stitch class"..."I wondered why no-one was overtaking me"..."I haven't got my glasses on and couldn't see my speedo" ..."I've got to get my Schitz Shu to the vets"..."My nail's broken and I've got to get to A+E"..."Someone stole my snowman", were all the possible excuses I could have used but I didn't have to - haha, I got away with it!

¬_¬

There's something you need to know.

When you get stopped by a Traffic Officer, your excuse has already been heard at least 5,627,230+ times before and therefore the Officer has a bank of answers to give right back to you including a fine, points on your licence and/or a ticket in most circumstances; friendly advice on some occasions... if you're lucky.

You DO realise you've been stopped for a reason, don't you?  Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the Law; it really isn't.

No, you're quite right, you weren't speeding but at the end of the day, something is not quite right with your vehicle which you may or may not know.  However, whatever the circumstance, you've chosen to ignore it and the chances are you think you won't get caught, so deep down if you do, your plan is to act dumb, play the fool, deny all knowledge - simplez.  No.

It might be because you have a wobbly/vibrating bumper or that your wheel arches at the rear of your vehicle are half an inch off your tyres or your tyres just look 'odd'.  It might be because your hook-up trailer looks naff.  It might be because you're hogging Lane 2 combined with something else that has caught a Traffic Cops eye and believe me they WILL look and they WILL check.

It might be you have no seatbelt on or your vehicle's MOT or insurance is out of date.  Oh yeah, you can be safe in the knowledge those fluffy, friendly, black cladded, lacy stocking wearing, white capped, hi-vizzed, Bodie and Doyle types know ALL about you before they've stopped you.

It might be because one of your passengers eyeballed a Police Officer the wrong way because he's had one too many Bristol Creams or has smoked the 'wrong' type of Golden Virgina; it could simply be your personalised numberplate doesn't fit your face ...not literally (however, in some circumstances, this could be a blessing).

If you're a foreign driver and you're flouting any of the UK Road Traffic/Safety Laws you won't be ignored like the old days.  You WILL be fined.  So just a friendly tip - make sure you've got plenty of GBP sterling on you, else unfortunately your vehicle won't be going anywhere near to Lithuania, let alone Dover.  Oh, another tip foreign brothers and sisters, don't barter or use your poker playing skills (strip or otherwise) with the Traffic Cops, it DOESN'T work.

No-one is immune to the Law in this country, including me.

Overall folks, what you don't seem to understand is you're getting stopped because you're compromising road safety; your safety, the safety of your loved ones and more importantly the safety of other roadusers around you on the road at any one time - if that's a coach, then ooooo, that's going to be about 60 odd people (someone elses mum, nan, dad, grandad, auntie, uncle, daughter, son, beloved friend).

"IT's Not Going To Happen To Me Syndrome" is a general life philosophy for a large proportion of people however, when IT does happen, there's nothing you can do about it.  You're getting stopped because "IT will happen to you if you don't do something about it" - howzat for a better understanding?  Terminal illness however, is a different story - that's a roulette you can't do anything about.

They're not called The Professionals for nothing.

A big thank you to RoSPA Kent for organising Police Shadowing with Kent Police Road Traffic Unit (Coldharbour), especially Graham and Alex for putting up with the old crow in the back - I had a great day; thanks for breaking my racetrack record

ps. No evidence of lacy stockings whatsoever to be fair.

Many years ago in fact as far back as 1264 there was a town called Meregate, which later became known as Margate. Steeped in maritime history it also became a very popular holiday resort for both rich and poor.

Inventions such as the bathing machine a contraption that was wheeled out to sea for both men and women to change into their costumes, made the experience of swimming ‘proper’ and drew more and more holidaymakers.

Margate was on the rise and both the famous and not so famous made a beeline for the stunning beaches, warm sunshine and good old Kentish beer. Songs and poems and films were made about Margate and families enjoyed each other’s company. Life was good for Margate. Well, if we ignore the mods and rockers having a pop at each other in the 1960s…

But in a cruel twist of fate Margate fell out of vogue. Gone were the wealthy tourists, and instead, Margate became home to desperadoes’, and many economic migrants, as well as many disenchanted Londoners sent to Margate by the various councils of London to enjoy the town and live free. Well almost.

The Victorian pier was largely decimated by a storm in 1978, mysterious fires destroyed buildings, unemployment started to climb and property prices headed south.  The UK was in financial turmoil in the 1980s, and Margate began to suffer more than most.  One newspaper called Margate ‘Britain’s Top Ghost Town’ and they didn’t mean of the spooky kind.

But hey presto, a glimmer of hope was there in the Noughties. But some evil landowners, it was said, decided to offer ‘incentives’ or might have been ‘bribes’ to some land and estate agents and not to pass on offers from buyers to sellers.  It was so they could buy them on the cheap! Boo I hear you say, and you would be right. Allegedly.

Huge government grants became available and suddenly the money was gone and some evil people might have trousered the lot. Allegedly.

Humble shopkeepers were asked for more rent and when they could not pay, they were chased to the end of the globe for the funds. Allegedly.

A huge gallery then appeared in 2011 with much acclaim, and with the gallery came the crowds. Many coming down to Margate yet again in mechanically propelled vehicles, as well as something called HS1. 

With the crowds came the sunshine, but beneath Margate’s rebirth, a few of those who felt wronged and a few with morals decided to start to expose those people, which they thought were responsible. Their aim is to make Margate the great place it deserves to be, without the alleged corruption. Like all good stories, there is bound to be a happy ending…

Well, the votes are in and counted. Kent has voted, it seems the turnout is up, and there has been a few changes. Predictably, the Liberal Democrat vote has capitulated in places (most notably Canterbury) and Labour has made gains.

Gravesham is a council Labour are championing this morning with a spectacular win, with Ed Miliband claiming ('the result proves' theory) his party 'are on the come back'. Alas, though; Dartford, Shepway and Medway have seen Labour fail to make any real gains; seats that were on the Labour target list. Conservatives have either maintained control or increased their representation. Thanet has fallen to No Overall Control (NOC), which is disappointing after Harriet Harmen and others visited this week. Labour failed to make, well, easy gains that they were expected to achieve.

Ed Miliband is touring the county and marching through the towns like a victorious Caesar, but it is covering up a modest night for Labour. And that is being kind. The infamous '+1,000 councillors easy' claim has proved to be false. The anti-cut message is not adequate due to Tory gains across the council. Cameron is the true winner in Kent.

More worrying, the Liberal Democrat vote did not move to Labour – it shows signs of the Tories benefiting. Canterbury, for example, has seen the Tories increase their councillors to over 30 with Labour (again) have no genuine presence on the council. Only 3 councillors.

Kent is still blue, and strongly blue, with a few spots of red and yellow.

note: Liberal Democrat leader at Canterbury City Council had this to say on twitter;

@ AlexCanterbury It was like sending your batsmen to the crease only for them to find their bats had been broken by the team captain #libdems