Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

So, you have two options:

1) Spend a lot of money introducing an expensive and time consuming process that will attempt to elect someone who will represent the public's views, but will probably be influenced massively by political rhetoric and media spin

2) Stop political meddling in policing which will cost nothing and allow resources to be devoted to what they *should* be concentrated on ie dealing with crime!

I know which I'd go for...!

I give you the examples of the NHS and education as two other prime candidates for the argument that the best option is to keep political hands off.

Politicians are continually fiddling and meddling with these "because that's what the public want", when what all those who are actually in the front lines really want is to be left to get on with the job and stop having to chop and change every couple of years because the government wants to look good and the opposition wants to get elected.

Again, you are spending money and using resources to try to fix a problem that could very probably be fixed by just *leaving* well alone.

But that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about *your* claim that young women would feel "safer" because of the resources being put into that case.

However the fact of the matter is that such a perception is false.

No, that's a Straw Man.

Pardon me if I doubt that, especially since, from the example above, it seems you're not even sure what *you* are talking about.

And, once again, you resort to political style rhetoric and false assumptions, demonstrating that you do not understand what I am talking about.

I did not, nor would I say "change nothing because the risk is so small".

Yes, checks should be made, yes, sex offenders should not get jobs working or near children, however the sort of panicky knee-jerk "we must be seen to be doing something" political reaction that followed Soham was *not* an efficient nor sensible use of resources and caused all sorts of problems because it was ill thought out.

Again, political rhetoric. Neither a single high-profile case nor emotive arguments should *not* determine policy.

Fine, I agree, but fix it in a *sensible* way, not with a knee-jerk that causes all sorts of other difficulties.

Rubbish! Many more children are abused by family and friends than by strangers and many more could be protected from abuse and harm by targetting resources into Social Services to *stop* it from happening in the first place.

And what about the "duty of care" to all those children being abused "in private"? It seems to be a case of "out of sight, out of mind"...

There is nothing "emotional" about it. It is a simple fact of logic. And that commissioner would most probably be more interested in exploiting emotion than facts, just like many other politicians.

Obviously it's their public duty to be burgled or mugged to help ensure that no children are murdered... :rolleyes: (Note: this is *irony*)

What was that line from Douglas Adams (or possibly Arthur C Clarke)? Those who seek public office and are capable of getting themselves elected to it are, ipso facto, entirely *unsuited* to the position...?!

The point is you would *NOT* get the "best person for the job", you'd get whoever could *convince* the public that they were best for the job which is an *entirely* different matter!

Read through my *what* again? My post? My arguments?

If there are fallacies in my arguments, please, point them out, but don't just use vague implication to suggest they are there without actually backing it up with proof.

Individually I'm sure, just like politicians Joe and Josephine Public are very nice people who I'd quite like if I met socially.

However "The Public" as a whole has a tendency to "mob mentality" and that benefits nobody.

As I said previously:

"The public in general do not think about these things in a non-emotional manner and putting up an official for election who *will* exploit public emotion to get the job is *not* a good idea."
__________________

:banghead:

Pierre, this sort of thing is really not doing your arguments any credit.

In case you really don't understand, what timewarrior and I mean by "leaving well alone" is *getting rid of* large amounts of the paperwork and red tape that successive Governments have dumped on the Police so they can *get on* with the job of dealing with criminals instead of Government "targets".

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Fair enough, but I'm willing to give it try.

True, I don't think health and certainly education have been managed very well. However, you have certain degree of freedom and choice with Health and Education, you pick and choose hospitals and schools or choose to go private.

You can't do that with the police, you can't decide to use another police force or use a private police force.

Your stuck with them, and if they are not coming up with the goods they're not accountable - to you at least.

Probably...Probably not. I'd still like a say.

True, statistically, it is a false perception. But as I say the same resources would be put into an investigation like that whether there was public mass hysteria or not.

I don't see why. Care to expand?

I'm very sure thank you.

Firstly, as seen as you don't even know any details about this proposal you're the one making most of the the assumptions.

Secondly, I wish you'd stop trying to propose that I do not understand what your talking about. It's not that intellectual.

It may have been Knee-Jerk, but they had to implement some measures immediately.

Not emotive, maybe political. Sometimes a single case may change policy, whats wrong with that? If due to this case serious flaws were found in the system.

Sometimes you don't have the time

**Warning** emotive political rhetoric - However unlikely, if another tragedy had occurred due to this system post Soham, they would have been strung up, and rightly so, for failing to act on a known issue.

It is rubbish, you introduced this into the discussion and it has nothing to do with it.

We're talking about the police not Social Services, if they were proposing a Social Services commissioner then fair enough. There are lot of public services were resources are an issue but that is a wider discussion away from this particular issue.

Again irrelevant, oh and emotional politcal rhetoric as well.

If the abuse was brought to the polices attention and they failed to act, then you'd have a point

As the abuse, as you point out, is in private and behind close doors just what do you expect do be done?? Issue the police with a crystal ball? They can only act on something if its brought to their attention.

What has this to do with the proposal? Going off on meaningless tangents like this does not help.

Yes there is, you were asking me to consider all these other people who will be mugged and burgled because resources are being used on a high profile case i.e. Soham.

But you cannot know if this would be the case. For a person who usually likes to be so factual you have no way at all of substantiating your point.

Yes, a poor attempt at it.

I take your point but you don't know that. You might get somebody very good, who does a very good job.

I thought I had been pointing out the weaknesses in you argument, and there are plenty of them.

True, but I'm failed to be convinced that they would be romanced by a failing Police Commissioner if he happened to solve a high profile crime just before polling day.


Well at last a well reasoned paragraph. Fair enough. We'll just have to wait and see. Chances are it'll never happen anyway.
__________________

Well if that's what he meant he didn't articulate it very well. I was just pointing out the conflict in his opening paragraphs.

I agree that red tape and paperwork has to be reduced, whose to say that this proposal will not be the catalyst for that?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

So a detective would be pulled of a hostage case or bank robbery to do beat work????

With regards basically means unless it doesn't make operational sense, the cheif constable should take into account the PA (currently) or commissioner (proposed) policies.
So if the commisioner suggests the police should tackle the vandalism outside the local chip shop by a gang of kids, then the chief constable should then incorporate that into his plans for the police tackling crime.
If the commisioner says "I want the police to monitor paedophiles 24 hours a day" the chief will obviously not do that as it's frankly impractical.

Currently Derbyshire has 17 people on the PA, you think 1 person replacing that will cost more???
God I want that job if it's going to be getting 17 salaries! wow! :rolleyes:

Graham, the police do not do checks on people working with children, therefore your claim that police resources would be used is factually incorrect.

Claiming the commisioner would be influenced by political parties, well, out of Derbyshire's 17 members of the PA, only 3 are appointed in a non-politically connected manner!
So currently there's more chance of political meddling!
Gee, lets keep that why don't we? :rolleyes:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

No, but they may be pulled off any investigations they are involved in to help solve more politically conveniant crimes.


The problem is, it won't just be one person will it? At the very least he'll need a Personal Assistant (OK, these don't cost an awful lot relatively) and other office staff.

It's also worth bearing in mind that those 17 people are all councillors (who are already elected) or magistrates, and reading that article it sounds like they are on the Police Authority part time (so shouldn't be drawing a full-time salary).




The problem with a commissioner (as I see it) is, as is stated in the article, he or she may have one particular belief that he or she thinks is more important than other crimes. For instance, a commissioner of a certain Ethnic group (for example) may place more importance on racially motivated crime, and therefore influence the Chief Constable* to devote more resources to race crimes.

The current system is designed (as I understand it) to counteract the possibility of the Authority becoming fixated with one issue.


*Yes, I do realise that Chief Constables could do this anyway. I just think it's important for the Police to be as impartial as possible.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Fine. Where are you going to get the money? More taxes? Or take it from some other area that also wants the cash.

You can hire private security or private investigators.

No, they're accountable to our *already* elected representatives.

True, statistically, it is a false perception. But as I say the same resources would be put into an investigation like that whether there was public mass hysteria or not. [/QUOTE]

I never said they wouldn't. I said people wouldn't *be* safer which you have now acknowledged.

You brought up the matter of people "feeling safer". You then imply that I'm suggesting that the actual allocation of resources would be different depending on public interest/ media coverage. I said nothing of the sort.

Sorry what was this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4252275.stm link in the very first post in this thread talking about, then? :confused:

Yet in the quote above I had to counter your claim that I was suggesting the allocation of resources would be different and in the one immediately below I had to counter your suggestion that I was saying "do nothing".

Had you read and understood my points those would not have been necessary.

Why? Because there was an *imminent* danger of another murder or murders taking place or because (to quote from further down this thread):

And I don't at all agree that this is "rightly so", but I will address this later.

Yes, a single case may change policy. And if there are flaws, they should be fixed. I entirely agree.

However it is the *mechanism* of change which is important and, once again, I point out that knee-jerk reactions or attempts to pander to public feelings are *not* the way to go.

As I said above, was there an *imminent* danger of another murder? Well, no, actually there wasn't.

It may also have been the case that the mess that was cobbled together to provide for checks could actually have left chilren *more* at risk!

We are talking about the sensible allocation and usage of resources. And the Police and Social Services do *not* act in isolation from each other.

If Social Services could get the resources and funding to do their jobs better, the Police may well have *less* work to do dealing with delinquent teenagers, vandalism etc etc.

Entirely relevant! The point is to deal with the problem *before* the Police have to expend their resources on it!!

Trying to consider problems in isolation instead of seeing them as part of an entire system also does not help.

No, of course I cannot *know* this would be the case, nor can I demonstrate the truth of the proposition, however there *is* a logical connection that can be seen by anyone who cares to think about it.

Ok, you *might* get someone who does a very good job, but I think that is less likely than getting a pseudo-politician who is more interested in pandering to public opinion to make themselves look better than actually concentrating on what the public needs (which is *not* the same as what they want!)

I cannot help what you think, however I have yet to see any evidence of this.

Then please excuse me if I am somewhat more cynical than you, especially where The Public's short term memory is concerned.

Gosh, that's *so* kind of you... :rolleyes:

Which is my fervant hope.
__________________

Well if that's what he meant he didn't articulate it very well. I was just pointing out the conflict in his opening paragraphs.[/quote]

It looked more like an attempt to score a cheap point.

By *introducing* another elected official and another set of hoops for the Police to jump through, you're going to *reduce* red tape and paperwork? Somehow I can't see that happening...
__________________

If I had *said* that "the Police do checks on people working with children" you would have been right.

Where did I say that? Oh, it appears I didn't say that either.

I used the word "politician" (with a small "p" to distinguish between them and MPs) to refer to someone who has to campaign to get their position and, as such, will be more concerned about how what they are doing *looks* to the Public, instead of whether they're necessarily doing the job well.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

:dig: This is a fanstatic smiley to use when Graham (or anyone else) has backed you into a corner by the way. ;)

I wonder if Marina has a painted into a corner smiley.

However I digress. I would like to add to Graham's comments about education that it would also be tremendously helpful If education was taken out of the hands of the government entirely.That way we might actually get some stability in education and an examination system that made some sense.I as a teacher am sick of being told how to teach by people who would frankly make cr@p teachers.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

[QUOTE=scastle]No, but they may be pulled off any investigations they are involved in to help solve more politically conveniant crimes.[/qoute]

Like speed cameras and local burglaries? :rolleyes:



Which the PA members already have so instead of 17 assistants they'll be just one. Now I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure one personal assistant won't be paid the same salary as 17 personal assistants, same as one commisioner won't be paid the equivalent of 17 PA members salaries, even part time salaries!


Elected on policies which the public want implimented, so if the commisioner gets voted in stating one of his policies will be to tackle race hate crimes, then by virtue of being voted in, his policies, all of them, are what the public want.
It will be up to the cheif constable to organise his forces to tackle race hate crimes, not the commisioner, therefore it will be up to the chief constable to ensure that other crimes are not ignored.
If crimes do end up being ignored, then the responsibility will be with the cheif constable (just as it is now) and not the commisioner.


Really?
In response to Pierre mentioning the backlog in the employee checks you said:

Now, as I said, no police resources are being dedicated to checking on the safety of employees working with children, and the people who do the checking don't deal with criminals who mug or break into houses.

The statement I made regarding political influence wasn't directed at you, hence the line break.


So, lets go over things for clarity:

The commisioner will be replacing a large amount of expensive beurocracy

The commisioner will be voted in on the merits of his policies

It will be up to the cheif constable to impliment those policies within operational expectations

The cheif constable will have operational independance as he currently does.

YOU could be the commisioner

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Indeed,

I think a lot of people are resisting change because they see it as change for changes sake. But I think this particular motion could be a positive move. - However, as I daid earlier it's unlikely the Tories will get in so no need to worry.


No need to come back at any of that as I've made my arguments and , in my opinion, you have failed to convincingly argue against them.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Yes, I did. *None* of which says "the Police do checks on people working with children".

The point is that many extra workers had to be drafted in to supplement those working at the Criminal Records Bureau in order to do all the checks the government all of a sudden required after Soham. Those workers cost money. Money (and workers) are resource. So resources that could have been used *by* the Police were being used elsewhere.

In which case you could have made it clearer since it followed immediately after a comment that was definitely directed at me.

Possibly. However it's more likely IM(cynical)V that they will just replace one lot of bureaucracy with another lot.

Or, rather, they will be voted in depending on how good they can make themselves look whilst making their opponents look bad. Facts and relevant information will most probably be lost in the rhetoric.

So the elected official can claim that *they* said "we should do this" but was over-ridden by the Chief Constable, so it wasn't *their* fault (possibly despite the fact that it may have been an inefficient use of resources or a completely impractical or inappropriate policy but which sounded good to the media).

*I* have more sense...!
__________________

And, in my opinion, this is the tactic of "declaring victory" in the hope that nobody will notice that you haven't made your arguments at all :rolleyes:

:walk:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Ah, the old rule-by-butter again. Slippery customers.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Spread across the political parties involved. THe best work Parliament does is through it's cross party committes. The people on a Police Authority are also not voted by the electorate specifically to be on it, but are elected to represent their communities. THat is an important difference.

THat Graham's on fire isn't he?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

You have a way far too high opinion of yourself.

Who said anything about declaring victory? as if a perceived "victory" over you would give me any pleasure. :erm:

This is not a competition, well it might be to you, it's a discussion.

All I said, if you read it for what it is, is that I have made my points, and you have made yours. The points you have made have failed to dissuade me from the opinion I have on this subject, becuase in my opinion they are weak and reactionary. Therefore, I do not see the reason for continuing the discussion any further.

That is all.

Victory indeed :rolleyes:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Thanks for that, now I've got a vision of goverment pen pushers running round after burglars and muggers! :rofl:

I thought I had by giving a line break and discussing something which you hadn't said.
I'd sing a song right now, but you'd probably think that was about you...



So rather than ensure that things get done to your standards you decline the chance, oh well, that's your choice I suppose.
Stick with the tried and tested "I don't like it, I can't give any evidence to back up why it would be a bad thing, and I don't see why I should suggest something better" argument.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Ok, you've not declared victory. But you've said Graham has "failed to convincingly argue against" your points and therefore there's "no need to come back at any". That's rather dismissive and hardly in the spirit of debate. Whatever you think about Graham's posts they have been considered - highly considered! - and have made a significant contribution to the thread (whether you or I agree with them or not) and are worthy of more than a brush off. If you're bored with the thread that's a different thing :)

For what it's worth, I like Clairey's point. Being specifically elected as a commissioner brings with it all kinds of political baggage and media inspired nonsense. At least with a PA there is a broad range of opinion from across the community which includes a majority elected to represent the community on all matters, not just policing. That sense of distance is I think important as is the ability for a variety of voices to have an input in the way communities are policed.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I didn't know I would be set upon by on Grahams minders.

I like arguing with Graham, however I felt if I carried on I would be flogging a dead horse. But if it makes you feel any better.



Where is your evidence that this will incur extra cost? It may focus the police to use their resources more wisely and reduce costs, allowing for extra resources to put into areas where it is needed.

Yes, you can usually find me around town flanked by my personal security guards. :rolleyes:

And our *already* elected representatives have umpteen other things to concern themselves with.

This proposal will bring a bit focus.


Statistically

Yes you did, from Post 71

Now, that's what that says to me. Wasting resources on a high profile case because it would look good to the public, implying that if that case wasn't so high profile the same amount of resources wouldn't be used.



Why? Because there was an *imminent* danger of another murder or murders taking place or because (to quote from further down this thread):

I agree to a point.

But in some issues "pandering to public feeling" and "addressing the publics concerns" are not the same thing.

Well, no, actually you don't know that. However, extremely, unlikely there was a risk.

It may also be the case that the mess that was cobbled together saved a child from harm

No we're talking about the introduction of a Police commissioner, the cost of which will probably be less than the existing PAs

You have brought in the Social Services angle to try and back up your weak stance

Yes all very nice, what has it got to do with the Police Commissioner?

And the introduction of a Police commissioner will prevent this how?

Yes, so the introduction of a Police Commissioner will bring the downfall of the "entire system"

A very tenuous connection, but I wouldn't exactly call it logical.

Well we'd have to wait and see.

Look harder

Cynical is exactly what it is, is what your objection is based around. I think Xaccers summed it up well

Takes one to know one.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

And you need to get off your High Horse.

If you are going to have a discussion, discuss, don't simply say "I've made my arguments and , in my opinion, you have failed to convincingly argue against them." because that doesn't contribute anything to the debate (note: *not* a "competition"), but looks like an attempt to dismiss my points instead of countering them.

No, the implication is that I have *failed* to make my points, seemingly because you don't want to accept my arguments are valid.

Neither do I.
__________________

Now substitute that vision for one of the Police needing to carry out checks but being unable to because everyone's looking at the backgrounds of people working or wanting to work with children.

You thought incorrectly.

Just going on to a new paragraph doesn't mean you're changing the subject.

See?

Depending on the song, you may well mean it to be about me, but would then claim that "oh, but I didn't *say* it was about you".

Please, Xaccers, I've been doing e-forums for too long now to be impressed or fooled by that sort of thing.

Oh dear, and this is *another* sort of thing that I am neither impressed nor fooled by and is about as logical as the "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument, but this time it's extended to "if you don't run for office yourself you can't complain"... :rolleyes:

No, I cannot give "evidence" to back up why it would be a bad thing, just as those who have argued it favour of it have not given "evidence" for why it would be a *good* thing.

I have opinions on the subject and I have given related examples to back up my position. I have suggested something better in that it would be an improvement for the Government to remove red tape and form filling duties from the Police to let them get on with their jobs.

All of that can be seen from my previous posts and now, as with Pierre, I see little purpose in continuing this discussion further.

:walk:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

A little history Graham, because the goverment knew they would be intorducing the intense checks on people's backgrounds, they took the responsibility for that away from the police and created a specific department for it.
The police still carry out their own checks as they always have, but now have *more* resources as they no longer deal with employment checks.
So, exactly how is that reducing police resources?


But talking about something which wasn't mentioned by you does tend to suggest a change in subject.

Elephants like buns

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Excuse me but is there any need for the scoring of cheap shots and almost name calling.If you have got to this point perhaps you need to call it a day. :erm:

I don't want to get the thread closed but if you continue..... :(

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Possible pot and kettle situation (hey, I'm less than perfect OK :) ), but I agree. This thread had at one point been interesting in that there were opposing viewpoints being argued with reason and intelligence. Now that is not the case. Can we either posit sensible, reasoned arguments or shut up shop?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Tried this link but got an error message saying 'This Document Doesn't Exist'. Made me smile that though ;)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Works fine for everyone here... do you have acrobat reader installed?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Now then, I might be a technophobe but........... :)

Still not working for me. Maybe they're denying access to liberal types!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

You are not missing anything.It's the usual scare tactics employed by the Tories in every election when they are in opposition. :rolleyes:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Can I just check something? From what I've read in the local paper the funds raised from speeding fines is ring fenced to go back into road safety work, if this is the case then what does this have to do with the police force making money? :confused: Chim can you confirm this either way if you're about?
__________________

So whats the point in having him/her? :confused:
__________________

Why? The limit's there for a reason (it's set by qualified people with experience in the field, it's not just a random figure plucked out of the air).

As Andyl said, if you don;t agree with it then lobby the appropriate person to get it reviewed. - Just as you would need to do with a commisioner!

As I've stated before, some people think it's a right to drive on our roads, it's NOT. It's a hard earned privilege which can be revoked anytime you break the law. Speeding is doing just that, as has been stated before, if you cant do the time........

As for a commissioner striking a balance, well I'm sorry but I just can't see it, not with the hysteria over speed cameras that's whipped up by the tabloids. :(
__________________

Yet that may be the reason the electorate chose that candidate, what happens then, the police go their own sweet way (quite rightly) and they are still not accountable! :confused again :
__________________

I could be and I'd make a really crap commissioner as I know absolutely nothing about policing, prety much like most of the other candidates wouldn't! :erm:

It's easy to spot where the trouble is in life but it's not so easy to come up with solutions.
__________________

It's a conspiracy I tell you, they've taken all our details and fed them into the Conservative super-computer worked out who has liberal views and they're going to track them down and make you vote Tory!!!! ;)

They'll be issuing ID cards next :erm:

Edit- attached the PDF for your perusal Andy - saying that is doesn't look like it's worth spending the time on it!

Does that mean I'm not a liberal if I can access it? :Yikes:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

This thread is an example of why I think one commissioner would be a bad idea. As I have stated countless times before, the kinds of people who seek to be elected into this kind of position would often say or do anything to keep themselves in that position. Which would mean that they would say they are going to sort out any problem that is currently being highlighted by the press at the time. For evidence of this, look at the fact that the political parties have started to take notice of people's concerns on immigration recently. I am pretty sure Labour have actually said in the past that there isn't a problem and we have tight enough immigration controls, now they are saying they will tighten them if they get into power.

Now, as I understand it, the current Police Authority system is designed to reduce the chances of the Authority getting fixated on one issue, and maybe not ignoring other issues, but certainly not devoting enough time or resources to them.

Now, Xaccers pointed out (in reply to me) that the Police Force would not have to follow the commissioner's guidelines. Now, dellwear has just asked the question I was going to. If the commissioner cannot force the police to do what he or she says, what is the point of the commissioner?

Sorry, but while I accept that the police need to be accountable to the public (to a certain extent), I do not believe a commissioner is the answer. As I understand it, the Police Authorities are already partially elected, so they are already accountable to the public. I believe that at best, a commissioner would be someone who has no actual power to do anything, but costs a lot of money. At worst, they would have policies that would interfere with the Police's ability to do their job (such as increasing paperwork).

I will admit, if it can be proved that having a commissioner will reduce crime, or at least increase the chances of criminals being captured and convicted (but obviously after the police proving they committed the crime), I am all for the idea. I am concerned that it seems that the Torys have come up with this idea and are promising to implement it without really investigating whether it will work.

Still, Micheal Howard has promised he will do this if put into power. Even assuming they do get into power, in my experience, the Tories don't have a good record for doing what they promise.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

If there is no operational justification for it, the cheif constable would not have to impliment it. For example, if the commisioner said he wanted all paedophiles to be followed, the cheif constable would be within his rights to not include that in his annual operations plan.
However, if the commisioner said that the police should tackle the very real problem of kids on a certain estate causing criminal damage, then it would be the responsibility of the chief constable to impliment that within his operational plan. This is what happens now.

Councillors represent their political party and very few people realise what the PA does (as demonstrated by some participants in this thread), let alone that it actually exists!
The public also has no say in the selection of which councillors join the PA.
That is not accountability.
As for costs, rather than paying for 17 people in a PA, you've got just the one.
Unless the goverment makes tackling crime harder for the police, nothing the commisioner can do will increase the paperwork or interfere with the police's ability to tackle crime.
It is the home office that decides proceedure, like what forms need to be filled out in triplicate, not the commisioner.
Also, the tories have stated they will reduce paperwork.

They've looked at other countries and seen the positive effect having an accountable commisioner has had.

Oh I don't know, they promised to take on the trade unions and stop the strikes that were crippling the country, seem to recall that happened.
The also promised to reduce crime and under Howard that actually happened.

True, money gained by the police through speed cameras has to be used in road safety, however this includes conferences with banquets at 5 star hotels discussing road safety.
Now unless the police are able to use the money to install speed bumps or redesign roads, the only thing they can do for road safety is install more cameras, or have more patrol cars (hmm why haven't they done that?)
Of course, all these cameras aren't just raking in money for the police, they're raking in huge amounts of tax for the treasury, could this be one of the reasons why the goverment are so pro cameras when more effective safety devices are available but don't bring in any money?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Well if it that's the case we should be awash with money - and that's certainly not the case! So I would be inclined to think it's for Police Road Safety funding. But in our Borough the dedicated Police Road Safety team has recently been disbanded due to........lack of funding. So goodness knows where the money is going to - it's not to the local authority road safety departments.
Well the only road safety discussions I've been to with the Police are held in their offices - so far I've missed out on the 5 star bit! But next week after 7 years in the job, I'm going here. :)
New traffic safety schemes such as speed cushions and road design are the responsibility of the local authority engineering departments, not the police - although they are consulted (along with the bus companies, emergency services and local residents, businesses etc) about any changes that are being looked at.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Well I just found this about our local "Safety Camera (cos you know they aren't just speed cameras :erm: ) Partnership"
http://www.lscp.org.uk/faqs.asp
So basically here a percentage of the fine gets recycled into local safety education, projects, publicity etc and the rest goes to the government. Now what percentage that is I don't know but since the local road safety unit can't seem to afford to keep it's staffing levels at the correct numbers or the road engineers do very necessary road improvements I'm assuming that the treasury gets about 2/3 of it.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I wish you hadn't attached it. Awash with rhetoric designed to incite fear. Some categories of crime are rising and yes that does include some violent crimes - but overall crime rates are falling. The fear of crime greatly exceeds the risk of crime. This is why debates become so emotive and why this proposal is nonsense. The suggestion of more drug rehabilitation facilities is, nonetheless, a hugely sensible one. Taking it a step further the decriminalisation of drugs and their regulation, production and distribution by the State is seen by many - including a JP I spoke to on Friday - as being arguably the single most effective anti-crime initiative that could be implemented. That idea will howver be a non-starter because of the media inspired hysteria surrounding drugs which an elected commissioner would necessarily have to take into account in any election campaign. I don't want to start another off topic debate about decriminalisation but just use this example of the dangers of politically inspired policing

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

:notopic: Yep that happened!Screwed what industry we still had but it happened.However the ORIGINAL promise of doing away with closed shops took them the whole of Maggie's reign to achieve.

However I think most people here have domonstrated why this idea by Michael Howard is a stupid one.

Some institutions need LESS politics than most.The police is one as are education and the NHS.I suppose though that Howard's idea on this occasion is a step up from all the unelected quangos that the Tories set up when they were in power.Lots of teams of unknown people making decisions on our daily lives that cannot be fired even by the government even if they are cr@p at it and are most certainly not chosen by the electorate. :(

However both systems have disadvantages but I suspect that with elected representatives the system would be a lot more unstable than at present.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Councillors may or may not represent a political party (at local level there are a fair few independent as well and three line whips); whatever they are charged with representing their community and, as a body drawn up from across the local spectrum, are more representative than an elected commissioner. You're not paying for 17 members as such either; councillors have much wider remits than being on the PA.

The Tories always say they're going to cut red tape and taxes, make life all rosy, bring world peace etc :sleep: Labour are no better. And the Tories crippled the unions like they said they would. That's one pledge that we could have done with them not keeping (all those NTLers out there watching jobs haemorrage abroad might now bre wishing they had access to effective joint action and fairer employment laws). They also said the NHS was safe in their hands. Pledges, promises blah, blah, bleedin' blah. We have stagnant politics (Tory and Labour) which does us no favours and its introduction to policing would be dangerous and ineffective.

Five star hotels?! Where did that come from. I'm guessing that it's copyright Associated Newspapers! :) Incidentally did crime fall under the Tories - I thought not. I remember Howard saying prison works which is quite patently not true unless he meant learning new criminal tricks and being returned to the community to try them out counts.


EDIT. And one other thing ;) Accountability? Why should this proposal make anybody/organisation more accountable? Detection, clear up, crime rates etc are already published (and we get details of where with our council tax bills here) it's just people can't be @arsed to look them up and then moan to the powers that be. Instead they're spoon fed selective items via the media (witness the speed camera/farmer Martin/Sarah's law stuff). This will only increase when you have an elected commissioner. It'll all become dominated, even more than it is now, by single issues such as, yawn, the speed camera debate (Don't even think of starting that one up again!!)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

So, the commissioner would have a purely consultative role, with no actual power.. Not sure how having someone with no actual power in this position actually makes the police more accountable.

Another thing. If our current system is causing problems now, why was it not causing problems when the tories were in power? It was largely the same system.
My point is that if crime is a problem in an area, then people may well see that as a failiure on behalf of their local councillors, and be less likely to elect them in future.

Yet.

I think there are problems within the police, but the whole system needs attention, not just one part (from the home secretary downwards).
They have stated that before. Mainly when they effectively privatised the NHS. Having worked in the privatised NHS, I would dread to see how much paperwork they had before if the amount I had to deal with was reduced. The paperwork in the system actually increased. Apparently a similar thing happened with the Railways.. Still, this isn't a discussion on Privatisation.

Where?
This actually resulted in England having some ofthe longest working hours in Europe..
True, I do agree that it is slightly confusing that the Police run some road safety measures (cameras and other enforcement system) while local councils run others (prevention methods). Maybe local councils should run all..

Still, there is one way around speed cameras. Don't speed..

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Instead of all this talk about new commissioners and such, how about keeping the same command structure, but making the chief superintendents publically accountable? As of now, the only people that can sack them are their bosses, and that doesn't really reflect the will of the people. The Tories shouldn't really be pushing for extra bureaucracy, as small governments are the cornerstone of all conservative agendas. That is for Labour to do. Politics should be kept out of the job, because the post would have no real link to the government.

I don't think that making a senior figure publically accountable will automatically make them focus on single "buzzword" issues. So long as the police have a reasonable turnover rate on solving crimes then the public will always favour the candidate. That is what people want at the end of the day, for the police to solve crimes. If one candidate doubled the conviction rate for burglars (or any serious crime), but quadrupled (or more) speed cameras, then I for one would be happy with that. And if they are outside schools, so much the better.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I do agree, with your post, and I do agree that not all commissioners would concentrate on the trendy crimes. However, I do think some would, and that is what concerns me.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

No they haven't, most people here argueing against the proposals don't appear to actually understand them.

Here's a few of the arguments so far:

1. It's an extra layer of buerocracy.
Wrong, it actually replaces a layer of buerocracy with a smaller one.

2. It will cost more.
Wrong, as it's only one person it will cost less than the current PA system and free up the current councellors to deal with other matters.

3. The commisioner will just tackle popularist crimes
I've yet to hear why it's a bad thing that the police tackle crimes which effect the local populous.
Also, the commisioner cannot make the cheif constable do anything which is not operationally feasable, just as with the PA

4. The commisioner will be powerless
Wrong, the cheif constable will have to work the commisioners wishes into his operations as long as they are feasable



Yee gods and little fishes! How difficult is it to understand?????
The commisioner will have the power to get the cheif constable to target crime as long as it is operationally feasable.
I have already given examples, but here's another (based loosly on actual events), hopefully you'll understand:

Littlebill Town has lots of instances of anti social behaviour. The police have been turning a blind eye to it and not actually aresting offenders, the home secretary isn't too bothered about this either.
The commisioner tells the cheif constable that the police must start tackling the issues and arresting people issueing ASBOs.
The chief constable can't argue with this as it's operationally feasable, and the police start arresting people and charging them with asbo's.
With offenders realising that the police are no longer turning a blind eye, even if they haven't been issued with an asbo, they start behaving.

Now, is that too difficult a process to understand?


Well, back then you had an more effective police force/home secretary combination, so the police weren't turning such a blind eye to issues.
Also "choice" has become a political facter thanks to labour spin (you know, you have choice as to which hospital you can be taken to for your hip op if your local one isn't good enough or can't fit you in. Of course most people don't want that, they want their local hospital to be up to the job in the first place! Or choice with schools as to which school you can send your kids to if your local one is crap. Again, most parents want their local school to be great and not have to lug the kids 10 miles down the road to another school. Labour: "We didn't improve your facilities, but we did give you the choice to go to someone else's facilities" :rolleyes: )

People don't know that it has anything to do with councillors, they just blame the police. Just look through the comments made by some people here and you'll see many don't have aany idea what the PA does.
With a commisioner they'll actually have a high profile individual, and will be able to do something about them if crime in the area hasn't been tackled.
Also the commisioner will be able to fire the cheif constable if he doesn't do his job (note for any paranoid conspiracists out there: doing his job does not mean doing every single thing that the commisioner says!)


Perhaps, if you have an ineffective home secretary then that is going to have a knock on effect with the police.
If the HS brings in new laws when old ones are more effective as long as they are enforced (take binge drinking, if current drink laws were enforced you couldn't get binge drinking, you wouldn't need so many police at chucking out time, but then, you wouldn't get so much tax from the booze would you?) and makes the police spend more time behind desks filling out paperwork or even out on the street filling out paperwork, then the system can't work very well.

Well america for one, and not just New York. As Graham stated in a previous thread (pretty sure it was graham) many other cities have reduced crime due to initiatives brought in by their elected commisioners.
I suggest you email David Davis and ask him :)

Making us one of the most attractive nations in europe for businesses to come to.
I like that I can do overtime if I want, I like that I can earn the extra cash rather than have it denied me.
Sure I shouldn't be forced into it, which we're not, but why should I be denied the choice to do more than 48 hours?
And just look at how often France gets brought to its knees with strikes.
Winter of discontent anyone? No thanks!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Oooh a very nice side swipe at our intelligence there.Thanks. I and others here who don't agree with you are considered unintelligent enough to understand Howard's proposal.Does that mean we have less intelligence than the average man or woman in the street?And the average voter probably understands them better than we do? If not it's a waste of time making the proposal if they can't understand it. :D

But then it sounds like a desperate attempt to sound and look different from Labour in my opinion rather than something that the Tory party might actually believe truly feasable. ;)

If the Tories do win the next election it will be something that I look to see them do....... ;)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Cobblers. If that's the right level of debate I've reached. And with that I'm off.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I was editing my post while you were adding these comments

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Really?So?...

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

So go back and read it again :P

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

What a pity you didn't edit it BEFORE you posted!!! and is it supposed to be some form of apology that you re-edited it?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Since when is saying someone doesn't understand something the same as insulting their intelligence?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

True, but it can work both ways. If people voted in someone who abolished speed cameras, but unsolved crimes, and car accidents went up, then that would backfire. The advantage of having a publically accountable chief superintendent is that if such a situation did arise, the public would only have a finite amount of time before they can remove gim from his job (rather than relying on his boss (who is probably his mate too) to do it via proxy).

Speed cameras, like parking tickets are a major annoyance, but people who hate them don't lose perspective on the issue. Bugularies, rape, murder, muggins, assault, are all more important, and as such will always be more 'populist' areas. At least i'd bloody hope so. :erm:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Xaccers, I much prefer your revised post. Please just admit the error of judgement on the original then we can all love each other - and disagree with each other - as before.


Next stop, resolving that thorny Middle East situation :)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Well put.
Someone who campains on tackling Bugularies, rape, murder, muggins, assaults and revising the placement of cameras is likely to get more votes than someone who campains on tackling Bugularies, rape, murder, muggins, assaults and abolishing cameras.

Most people who are anti cameras are actually pro camera as long as they are placed in areas where they will do the most to save lives, not earn the most.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

No, it isn't. No need to patronise me..

I do happen to think that if the police are ignoring many instances of anti social behaviour, and not actively enforcing ASBOs, then assuming there is no reason for it (such as lack of resources or too many officers tied up with paperwork), perhaps the Chief Constable is not doing their job?

No, you have made the point that the Chief Constable would not necessarily have to follow the guidelines set down by the Commissioner. This is what I based my comment about it being a consultative position on, as if the Chief constable ignores the "advice" given, then it will have no effect.

And they shouldn't be now, which is why I suggested that the whole system be reviewed..

Choice is good. But, as you say, our current government have used it as a substitute for quality.


Actually, in some jobs, people are forced into it.. Doctors for instance. Admittedly, the hours for Junior Doctors have been reduced, but IIRC, John Major's government fought that tooth and nail, and only reduced them when the EU intervened.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Can we sod the cameras off now?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

It wasn't.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Sorry, I was refering to

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...highlight=york

Where I believe you were trying to get accross the point that other cities have reduced crime throught initiatives other than zero tollerance.
Actually, you didn't get round to responding to my post #88, tsk and you've had over a year to do it *grin*

Of course the american system isn't what the Tories are proposing.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Which is a totally different subject and, as you point out, not what the Tories are proposing.

No, I just decided the thread wasn't worth continuing.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I was responding to scastle's question about where the tories had looked for examples of success with initiatives brought in by an elected official/commisioner
Now, most people when you mention america with regards to this think of the Zero Tollerance initiative of New York.
I remembered that you had refered to some articles in a previous thread which stated that crime had been reduced in other areas without having to resort to zero tollerance but through the initiatives of the elected official.
So as you can see, linked to this subject with several similarities to the Tory proposal.