With the beginning of the season almost upon us with Sunday’s curtain raiser Community Shield match at Wembley, I’ve noticed some premiership clubs in London ( Spurs, Arsenal and West Ham) have already banned the vuvuzela, the plastic trumpet which made the buzzy noise in the background of many of the games during the successful World Cup in South Africa. This is very unfortunate.

Now, l confess that l didn’t particularly take to them at the beginning of the World Cup when I was watching the first matches of the tournament on TV from London, but while l was out there, from the quarter finals onwards, for the last two weeks, l took to them when I was at the Stadiums.  I found they were not so hard on the ear, even when people were blowing their vuvuzela next to me!  Indeed, l welcome this africanisation of football, not just the vuvuzela but also the makoya ( Football Fan Helmet ) because they are part of the legacy of the first world cup on African soil.  Their inclusion is a continuation of the trend from previous World Cups that brought us the Mexican wave from the 1986 tournament. 

Furthermore, it’s not going to help our World Cup bid for 2018 and 2022 this autumn if we are seen to be party poopers, particularly by the African FIFA members.  So it’s good to see that the FA have not banned the vuvuzela from this season’s curtain raiser at Wembley between Chelsea and Man United this coming Sunday.  This is in keeping with the best traditions of the FA, as l am sure they never banned the rattle during the 1950s!

And most of those who do live in the city are resident in outer boroughs.

It has raised concerns about the low number of police living among the communities they serve in inner-city areas.

Karen Buck, the Labour MP for Westminster North who raised the issue, said she knew of one officer who commuted from the Isle of Wight.

Of 33,105 Met officers, 16,766 (50.6 per cent) live in a London borough and 16,339 live elsewhere.

The most popular boroughs for police include Kingston, where 1,814 officers live, Bexley, (1,754), Bromley (1,303) and Croydon (1,118).

But only 64 live in Westminster, 41 in Islington, 24 in Southwark and 15 in Kensington and Chelsea.

The figures emerged in a answer to a question to Mayor Boris Johnson by Labour London Assembly member Murad Qureshi and Ms Buck.

An exodus is thought to have started in the early part of the decade when the Government introduced free rail travel for officers within 70 miles of the capital. The move followed complaints that police could not afford housing costs in London.

Ms Buck said: "We need to keep a balance between a desire to reward officers and a desire to encourage people to live in or near communities they serve. I am not sure we have the balance right now."

Details of where the officers live outside London were not revealed in the Mayor’s reply. But Ms Buck said she knew of one who came from the Isle of Wight, and anecdotal cases of others travelling from counties such as Wiltshire and Berkshire.

In his response, Mr Johnson said: "The important point for community safety is where police officers are deployed, not where they sleep."

Policing expert Tony Travers, of the London School of Economics, said: "There are clear consequences. Off-duty police are much more likely to be on the street in outer boroughs or Kent and Hertfordshire than in Camden or Kensington. That must have an impact on the likelihood of crime being stopped at an early stage."

And most of those who do live in the city are resident in outer boroughs.

It has raised concerns about the low number of police living among the communities they serve in inner-city areas.

Karen Buck, the Labour MP for Westminster North who raised the issue, said she knew of one officer who commuted from the Isle of Wight.

Of 33,105 Met officers, 16,766 (50.6 per cent) live in a London borough and 16,339 live elsewhere.

The most popular boroughs for police include Kingston, where 1,814 officers live, Bexley, (1,754), Bromley (1,303) and Croydon (1,118).

But only 64 live in Westminster, 41 in Islington, 24 in Southwark and 15 in Kensington and Chelsea.

The figures emerged in a answer to a question to Mayor Boris Johnson by Labour London Assembly member Murad Qureshi and Ms Buck.

An exodus is thought to have started in the early part of the decade when the Government introduced free rail travel for officers within 70 miles of the capital. The move followed complaints that police could not afford housing costs in London.

Ms Buck said: "We need to keep a balance between a desire to reward officers and a desire to encourage people to live in or near communities they serve. I am not sure we have the balance right now."

Details of where the officers live outside London were not revealed in the Mayor’s reply. But Ms Buck said she knew of one who came from the Isle of Wight, and anecdotal cases of others travelling from counties such as Wiltshire and Berkshire.

In his response, Mr Johnson said: "The important point for community safety is where police officers are deployed, not where they sleep."

Policing expert Tony Travers, of the London School of Economics, said: "There are clear consequences. Off-duty police are much more likely to be on the street in outer boroughs or Kent and Hertfordshire than in Camden or Kensington. That must have an impact on the likelihood of crime being stopped at an early stage."

I always listen for news of the August monsoon rains with trepidation, as it usually means floods in the north-east of the Indian sub-continent, in the Bay of Bengal, and hence in Bangladesh.  This year, for the first time I can remember, it’s hit the north-west of the sub-continent in Pakistan, along the Indus river in the north-west, the Punjab province and is soon to hit Sindh province. It’s the biggest natural disaster Pakistan has faced since independence, with more then three million people already affected, and where do you think President Zardari is?  Well, he and his family are here in London, having first enjoyed a few days in Paris, and will probably be around till the end of the forthcoming weekend, after attending a rally in Birmingham to launch his son’s political career.  This says a lot about his priorities.  When his country needs some firm leadership, particularly from a civilian government rather than the army, he is in London plotting his son’s political future under the joint dynasty of the Bhuttos and Zardari.  President Zardari was of course married to the late Benazir Bhutto.  l wonder what the people of Sind will make of this, the stronghold of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) which is the President’s political party, and which many observers from aboard regard as a possession of the Bhutto clan – so much so that it should really be called the BPP, or Bhutto’s People’s Party.  Normally, the landed gentry of Sind look out for their ethnic brothers and sisters, and the President will no doubt go to them to install his son into political office, but if he’s still on our shores visiting his properties as well as launching his son’s career while the floods hit Sind, I’m not sure the masses will be so keen on them any more.  The best thing that could happen here is if nobody bothers turning up to this rally in Birmingham. That should get the message through to them in very clear terms how badly out of kilter they are from public opinion in both Pakistan and the UK.  Surely, a Bhutto would never have made such a mistake?

In the meantime, the views expressed by David Cameron last week in India, of all places (Pakistan’s presumed eternal foe) have become less significant (though largely substantiated) if you consider the activities of the ISI* in the Pakistan army, and any verbal clash President Zardari may have with him on this by the end of the working week will pale into insignificance, as ordinary Pakistanis suffer again under the hands of their political masters.  It will be those who help them in their hour of need who will get their future support, not those who are plotting their family’s future monopoly of political power in Pakistan from the other side of the world.  

*The Inter-Services Intelligence or ISI is the largest of three intelligence agencies in Pakistan

Putting the key in for the first time

Well, it was a revelation to be able to cycle around the local neighbourhoods like St Johns Wood, Marylebone and Paddington over the weekend and go to see relatives in Kensington through Hyde Park, but the reality is this cycle hire option doesn’t exist for most Londoners living in the suburbs and it can get expensive very quickly.

For those of us who live in West Central London, the Barclays Cycle hire scheme allows us an additional option to take journeys we would normally do by foot, bus and tube as we go about our daily lives like going to the post office, bank and leisure facilities, but when l really could have done with a bike was when I went to a wedding on Sunday night in Syon Park & to get there from Syon Lane rail station, l fell back on walking again! Thus it will have to be expanded greatly into the suburbs if it is actually going to make a real difference to the vast majority of Londoners lives who may want to use the bikes to make trips to the local train station.

The cost of the scheme will exclude many potential users, as it costs £45 for the annual subscription, for which you need a credit card, then it’s a further £3 for the key. Admittedly the first half hour is free, but after that it gets very expensive rather too quickly; and it falls down on convenience by not being Oyster compatible yet.

Finally, it still has teething problems; some of it’s cycle stations are not even built yet, for example the one in front of Paddington Green Police station, some cycle stations are not releasing their bikes, as I found out today at Frampton St station on the Edgware Road, and e-mail messages of free travel on Saturday have not materialised as TfL state this only applied for the first day of its operations.

So we still have some way to go before it becomes an integral part of Londoners’ lives.

They warn that at £140 million, the project is more expensive than similar ones in other European cities, and breaches the Mayor’s manifesto pledge to introduce it "at no cost to the taxpayer".

An annual subscription costs £45 (plus a one-off £3 charge for an electronic key) compared with €29 (£24.50) for Paris’s VeLib, €30 (£25.30) for the Villo in Brussels and €30.50 (£25.80) for the Bicing in Barcelona.

Copenhagen’s ByCyKlen scheme is free – and only requires the cyclist to deposit 20 Danish krone (about £2.20) in a slot to release the bike. The cash is refunded when it is returned.

Only Montreal’s Bixi, upon which the London scheme is based, charges as much – its annual subscription costs 78 Canadian dollars (about £48).

Research for the Standard found that London’s daily hire charges – which are levied after the first 30 minutes of "free" riding – are also generally more expensive than those on the Continent, though it depends on the exchange rate. This has added to concerns at the way the London charges escalate sharply after an hour, with a £150 penalty if the bike is returned after 24 hours or £300 if it is damaged or lost.

Labour’s Murad Qureshi, who earns £53,439 as a member of the London Assembly, said he would still buy a £45 annual membership but feared many on lower salaries would consider it too expensive. He said he was also disappointed that the system was not compatible with the Oyster card.

The London scheme launches to registered users next Friday, while unregistered casual users and tourists will have to wait until the end of August. Mr Johnson secured £25 million in sponsorship from Barclays for the hire bikes and his "cycle superhighways".

A TfL spokeswoman said it was "not cost effective" to use Oyster with the cycle hire scheme at launch. She added: "For short trips of 30 minutes or less, Barclay Cycle Hire will be the cheapest way to travel within the central London area, costing as little as 12p per day for those who register for annual membership."

* Contractors have begun to test bike-docking stations, like the one above in Southwark Street. The checks involve putting the vandal-resistant bikes, which cost about £350 each, into the docking stations for several hours at a time. Up to 6,000 of the bikes will be placed on the streets overnight next Thursday in time for the scheme’s launch the following day.

Last week, on the final day of submission for the Labour nomination as Mayoral candidate for 2012, l backed Ken. That’s not surprising as we need a serious heavyweight to challenge Boris in 2012 and show what he’s been up to since 2008. We also do not want a coronation like we did in the Labour Party when Gordon Brown took over as leader of the Party and as a result PM of the UK. A challenge then would have given Gordon and the party an opportunity to talk about where we were going in government well before the 2010 General Election defeat. Importantly, if the party had done that it would have helped Gordon keep all those who subsequently challenged his authority in Downing St off his back and undermined him in office. As he would have been able to say, why are you challenging me now when you had the opportunity during the leadership contest. So in this respect Oona is doing us a great service in the London Labour Party by challenging Ken, as he’ll have to respond to a more youthful and diverse reflection of London than he has previously.

In the meantime, we are hearing the first indications that Boris will stand again. Quite honestly that is not surprising as l am not sure where else he has got to go now that his party is in power in the coalition government. (It would have been better for him if the Tories had lost, prompting a challenge for the leadership though he would have had to get back into the Commons). Clearly he expects it to last beyond 2012 and with his push for new powers to the mayoralty he is showing some interest in what the position can do beyond its present confines.

The Mayor’s recent proposal for devolution has one theme going through it, green devolution in London, though l do not think it was intended. It has some interesting proposals for green devolution in London governance, as he undoubtedly comes to realise the limitations of making an impact in this arena via the powers vested in the Mayor’s office. It starts with the management of our green spaces hence the push for the Royal Parks Agency; taking control of the main waterway through London the Thames by proposing the Port of London Authority (PLA) be devolved to the GLA Group; realising the limitations of the Mayor’s London Waste Authority under his control and asking for more powers here; and finally and not least on the Energy & Climate Change front.

The Royal Parks in London proposal was leaked some time ago in the media and is particularly important for central London. The key issue here for the Mayor is to make sure he is not short changed by the DCMS. Now that is going to be difficult when all government departments outside Health & International Development are going to have to make cuts of 25 per cent over the next 4 years, as l cannot see how the £19 million that the Royal Parks gets already will be transferred over to the Mayor. This will mean that the parks are not maintained in the manner we are accustomed to and we will probably have more events in parks like Hyde and Regents park. Just the thing many people do not want.

The move for the PLA is certainly intriguing as l have already indicated in a previous blog on the battle for PLA. But there are still a few misunderstandings by the Mayor’s office. Again on the funding front, the Mayor’s office thinks funding from the PLA should be transferred to them when in fact it is self-funding through its licence fees etc for harbour services and facilities. Furthermore, this proposed devolution to the GLA group would mean the Mayor extending himself geographically into the Thames Estuary and I’m not sure of the motivation here at all for this.

Its interesting to note the request made to strengthen the London Waste and Recycling Board (LWaRB) role in delivering efficient and effective waste management for London, as Boris has come to realise the limitations of its powers and is probably a return to the arguments of just one waste authority across London that we had in the last Mayoralty that Ken fought for (and lost to DEFRA) when we last had a discussion of a transfer of new powers to the London Mayor. Quite frankly that’s not surprising and it’s interesting that both the mayors have come to similar conclusions.

The weakest area of proposed further green devolution is unfortunately on the Energy & Climate Change front where we have just loose talk about a more regional approach. Quite honestly we need a lot more accountability of the private utilities like the energy and water companies over their investment plans for London and at present we do not even know what investments the energy companies are making in energy efficiencies measures in our homes let alone new measures for further energy supplies.

The London Assembly has launched a pre-emptive strike on BAA by unanimously calling for a ban on any increase in the number of flights at Heathrow.

The move comes in response to growing fears that, following the Government’s decision to reject a third runway, the airport operator may try to increase the number of flights from its London airports by other means.

Hounslow’s assembly member, Tony Arbour, who seconded Murad Qureshi’s motion, said: “In the past Whitehall’s promises to limit Heathrow’s expansion have proved less reliable than a budget airline flight.

“We want the Secretary of State for Transport to say to BAA ‘thus far and no further’. The residents of London cannot be expected to tolerate any more flights in our already crowded skies.”

The full motion, which was passed on Wednesday, blocks moves such as mixed mode operations – planes landing and taking-off on the same runway at any time or period of the day – more night flights or expansion at London’s airports.

It read: “This Assembly notes the long standing opposition of the parties in the coalition government to any increase in flights, mixed mode operations, night flights or expansion at London’s airports, and calls on the Government to firmly and openly reject any increase in the number of flights at BAA’s London airports.”

A BAA spokesman said: "We will spend some time reflecting on the new Government’s intention to change airports policy.

"We continue to believe that new airport capacity would strenghten the UK’s global trading links.

"At the last night flights consultation in 2006 we did not seek any increase in flights during the night period and our position has not changed since then."