IT has all backfired. Zero Tolerance is now top of the agenda. It is the talk of police and public alike.

In the two-and-a-half years that I have been suspended from Cleveland Police, I have avoided using this column to discuss my own situation. But following the events of last Thursday - a remarkable day - suddenly I and Zero Tolerance are back in the news. This week, therefore, I make no apologies for addressing my own situation.

Last Tuesday, I was cleared of criminal wrongdoing. Rather than elation, I felt it was an anti-climax. The only allegations against me had been covering up the wrong-doing of two other officers - perverting the course of justice. I knew I hadn't, and so it was no surprise when Operation Lancet failed to find any evidence that I had.

Last Thursday was the day I had arranged to speak to the Press about my exoneration and my desire to get my job back. But my Press conference was hijacked by a cleverly-placed leak to a national newspaper.

It was no coincidence that bits of the Treasury Counsel report written by two anonymous barristers appeared in a paper that morning. And the contents of the report - its criticisms of Zero Tolerance and of management issues within Middlesbrough police station - were of little surprise. Many of these criticisms were first aimed at me, and Cleveland Police, when we introduced the strategy in 1997. Indeed, back then, the criticisms came from the same source - from barristers and solicitors who have little knowledge of policing strategy and management.

If half of what was said in that newspaper report was true, both myself and the Chief Constable of Cleveland, Barry Shaw, should resign. We haven't, and Zero Tolerance remains a policy of the Cleveland force.

Treasury Counsel's role is to review the evidence and advise on criminal proceedings. I can only assume, therefore, that these barristers digressed into commenting on something they know nothing about because of their wish to sabotage my case.

Just three organisations had sight of their report - the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police Complaints Authority and Cleveland Police. One of them was the source of the leak. The PCA has denied culpability but, ultimately, I hold it responsible. It is in charge of Operation Lancet. I would have thought it would have started a thorough investigation into the leak if only to clear its own name. To my knowledge it hasn't yet.

I learnt of the leak at 9am. My Press conference started at 10am. It wasn't hard to react to it - you only have a problem in reacting if you are lying - and the Press themselves weren't taken in.

In fact, the story had suddenly moved on. It had become bigger than the demands of a policeman in far-flung Cleveland for reinstatement - it had become a national debate about the merits of Zero Tolerance.

From 10am at the Blue Bell Hotel in Middlesbrough to 12:10am the following morning in the BBC studios in London, I did 48 media interviews defending myself and Zero Tolerance.

I made the same point time and again: the strategy employed by Cleveland goes far beyond Zero Tolerance. It includes problem solving policies and community partnerships which address the long-term problems. It also includes a media strategy. Although I am accused of ego-mania, the reason we looked for publicity was that, rather than operating in an office vacuum, each time I addressed a Women's Institute meeting, our message got directly to 200 people. Each time I wrote a column in The Northern Echo, it reaches 200,000 people. Each time I appeared in a national paper or on national television, millions of people began to understand.

The Zero Tolerance part of that strategy grabbed the headlines. I used to call it "here and now" because it addresses the short-term problems that are here in Cleveland at this very moment.

And that's where the Treasury Counsel barristers showed their ignorance. They said it didn't show any increase in detection rates. Of course it didn't. It was all about reducing the number of crimes that were being committed. Burglaries in Middlesbrough fell from over 400 a month to about 250 a month. This meant there were fewer crimes to detect and, most importantly, fewer victims to deal with.

The Treasury Counsel barristers said it shouldn't have been introduced without research. So what are those barristers going to say to the little old lady in Teesside or anywhere else who is mugged today? That she'll have to wait five years before the streets are safe because they have to research police methods?

And that's why the leak has backfired. The public wants answers to the problems on their streets now. The leak catapulted Zero Tolerance to the top of the agenda where it will remain until the General Election because politicians of all parties need to answer these questions as well.