We all have at least one friend who when out for an Indian or Chinese meal would struggle to pick from a single choice menu. They always insist on ordering last as clearly hearing the dishes spoken brings a clarity in decision making that isn’t there when reading the thing. The meal is served and they are the one full of regret they didn’t choose what someone else had devoured beside them.

That reason, ahead of many others, is why whenever I find myself out with a large group of friends we tend to let the kitchen decide what to feed us. The waiter is happy, the kitchen is happy, the choices served are usually varied, invariably delicious, and come in copious quantities. The bill is split – no one makes a fuss about only having a main but no starter. Everyone is a winner!

Our public and political institutions would do well to learn from the customer experience in Indian and Chinese restaurants. They fully appreciate the flavours their diners are looking for – which is why they don’t serve up a dozen Chicken Maryland when trusted with making the choice. Just because it's on the menu – that’s not the business they are really in, and if you want it, you’re probably in the wrong place.

READ MORE

Police Scotland under fire over race a year after broadside

Public services dedicate entire departments to pretending we, the public have a say in what goes on in them, and how they deliver service to us. Many councils went through the pretence at the beginning of the year as they asked their long-suffering constituents which essential services they wanted less of, as they simultaneously drew up plans to deliver less of all of them regardless. As menu options went – very few had garnish to disguise the unpalatable thin gruel on the plate.

Our national police service has 120 lines of legislation covering 1,100 plus words dedicated to its obligations to ask the public lots of different things. The police service has more plans and references to planning than a library full of George Orwell’s Animal Farm.

Strategic Plans, Annual plans, Local plans – it’s all in there – and it’s all for show. Public expectation is to be tolerated rather than respected – with legions of people being deployed to gerrymander any public responses to myriads of consultations in order to fit the predetermined list of things the police service wants to deliver.

A few weeks ago, the Chief Constable, in a further nod to the inconvenience that crime causes our national force, apologised for upholding the law. That was quite the statement – wrapped up of course in the ever-important sack cloth and self-flagellation, such apologies now necessitate. Like many serving and former police officers, I asked myself “what have we done now?” and as the Chief went on to say we criminalised love, I’m still none the wiser.

Sure – the police had historically taken a dim view of men – for it's usually men –  soliciting strangers. Distain for such behaviour is obviously seen as passé in today’s progressive police service – but such acts rightly remain criminal.

Jo Farrell may be a hopeless romantic who believes such mostly anonymous liaisons are motivated by love – and as such are undeserving of police time – but me, I’m altogether more sceptical. Ask the public if the police should be criminalising love and they will say of course not. Ask them if they should be criminalising men who solicit in public conveniences and you might just get a different answer.

Jo Farrell addresses her troopsJo Farrell addresses her troops (Image: free)

It is obvious that with her ‘criminalising love’ apology, Jo Farrell is setting out her stall on a whole host of issues surrounding sex and gender politics. There was no clamour or campaign for the apology and its appearance, timing, and delivery suggests it was driven by internal activism and not a genuine sense of righting historic perceived wrongs.

That is something which should concern us all. Its one thing to at least ask the public before ignoring it, its quite another to have police policy dictated by internal zealotry under the false flag of progress. Being progressive – whatever that means – may well be on the police menu – but its not the main reason they are there.

Last weekend JK Rowling eviscerated the Labour Party for its stance on women’s rights. Her comments won’t change the outcome of the election but will serve as a timely reminder that when it comes to issues which have the potential to impinge on safety its often wiser to listen before acting.

We should all be wary of what any political party puts in its manifesto – not least as they tend to use lots of words without saying much of anything in particular. Being vague is part of any electoral strategy – and is especially important if a party is likely to win.

READ MORE

My heart broke for woman who was raped but we can't jail innocent men

Keen to show that it has not learned from the mistakes of the SNP, Labour’s manifesto contains the double headed pledge to protect women’s sex-based rights whilst making the act of transitioning gender easier.

How that will work in reality is not obvious as those who have long advocated for sex-based rights have been vilified across the political spectrum. Putting the Adam Graham / Isla Bryson’s and Andrew Millar / Amy George’s of this world in male prisons is if course an important step – but misses equally important safeguards that simply exist through self-policing of societal norms. Blurring these margins will satisfy neither side of this impossible equation.

When Labour win the election next Thursday it would do well to remember that most of the votes it secures will come from people who didn’t read its “menu.” Manifesto pledges are the Chicken Maryland of the political world – just because it’s there, it doesn’t mean the people want it, and if you insist on serving it – you don’t understand your customers, why they came to you, and crucially your role in making them want to come back.

Calum Steele is a former General Secretary of The Scottish Police Federation