ACTING as an arbiter can be a thankless task - whatever you decide someone will be unhappy. But what I am pleased to see is a growing trend for those who sit in judgement to come out and defend their corner, rather than simply sitting back in an ivory tower.

The football referee Graham Poll is not everyone's cup of tea and his exaggerated actions have led to suggestions he plays to the cameras, regards himself as much of a star as the players themselves. But I was pleased to see Mr Poll speak out against "divers"and to back this up by naming some obvious examples. Sir Alex Ferguson was not happy that one of his players was identified but I think he rather missed the point.

For too long football managers have blamed the referee for every loss, diverting attention from their team's own mistakes. So it's good to hear the ref's point of view. Sir Alex should be using his influence to make sure his players don't dive instead of shooting the messenger. At a far more serious end of the scale, judges and magistrates frequently face criticism for comments or decisions they make.

Recently a senior police officer in Stockton used his retirement to criticise the courts in sweeping terms for allegedly granting bail to prolific criminals. In my view, if the officer was that concerned he should have said something whilst in post. Then he could have worked with the local courts to try and improve matters.

In 1995, whilst sharing a platform with Peter Mandelson, I made a much-publicised speech criticising Crown Court judges and magistrates for failing to protect the public. Before opening my mouth I had taken the precaution of ensuring we in the police had got our act together with regard to fighting crime.

I used specific examples rather than generalisations and afterwards I opened up a dialogue with the courts so we could all work together. Whilst I will still comment on cases if I think it is necessary, I am pleased to say that over the past decade there has been a definite improvement in the way the courts operate and one of the area's most senior judges, Peter Fox, seems to be leading the way.

I recall how as long ago as 1996 Judge Fox took the trouble to invite me to his chambers to discuss matters. On another occasion Judge Fox rang a local radio station during a debate on CCTV to point out how many images were so poor they were inadmissible. His call for better use of technology has contributed to the improvement in the evidence now presented to the courts. Judge Fox has also attended local crime and disorder forums and faced the public during Crown Court open days.

He was therefore entirely within his rights to raise an eyebrow at the comments of the retiring officer and point out that magistrates face a very difficult job in assessing bail applications and better prepared police case files might help.

I recently attended a meeting of the North-East Magistrates Association and was pleased to find the 60 or so present covered the whole spectrum of society and displayed a common sense, down-to-earth attitude. There is a shortage of magistrates, possibly due in part to the repeated criticism, and an advertising campaign to attract more recruits has been launched. Perhaps the retiring police officer, who was so critical of magistrates, should apply. He'll be eligible in two years time and clearly he thinks he can do a better job than the current crop.