I think this is a stupid Idea
 

link

Michael Howard must be mad!!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Hmm, the idea of elected officials to oversee policing, in some form makes sense. Whether or not the tories way of doing it is right, I don't know.

At present the system requires the Police Authority to appoint a Chief Constable, and to approve that Chief Constables plans for the district (setting budgets, and what not). The problem is the Police Authority is another unelected quango, responsible only, I think to the Home Secretary. Other checks are in place by the HM Police Inspectorate, who check on standards and such like. Again the inspectorate is unelected, often made up of senior police officers.

Why shouldn't communities be able to directly influence the policing priorities for their districts. Safeguards of legal duties and responsibilities for policing as a whole will always exist, just like local authorities can be told off by District Auditors for maladministration. But within the framework of overall responsibility would an elected authority be better able to influence priorities of say anti social behavour and violent crime over say speed cameras?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Yup, not a good idea. But then it's a purely hypothetical scenario as if the Tories are elected I will eat not just my own hat, but Delia Smith's Norwich bobbly, Albert Tatlock's flat- cap, Billy Smart's topper, all the SAS's green berets and every product on display at HatsRus :)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Surely the people dont know about the requirements of the job and shouldnt be allowed to vote for them.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Have you seen the mismanagement in the US where they elect their own sherriffs and other law authorities?It's a damned mess.Besides we have enough elections without having another one to pay for.

EDIT: I also don't want certain groups to get priorites over other groups just because they have a louder voice either which could certainly be a scenario in a situation like this.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

It would also mean that people with agendas will be elected. The chances of a BNP officer are quite high. Considering they do get elected in local elections and so forth

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

So it comes down to the choice of: should or should not communities be able to influence the local policing priorities.

The issue is one of accountability (the police are not elected - and in my view should not be elected - unlike the USA sherrif systems), yet the authority that manages them are also not elected.

OK so government (or at least the Home Secretary) being elected sets an overview for the policing strategies, and legislation says what the police can and cannot do, and what their duties to the public are in maintaining law and order. But national priorities may not reflect the needs of the more local communities.

Yes power shouldnt be in the hands of a single person, i.e. the tories commissioner, that risks too great a distortion. A larger quorum must exist to safeguard against this. Maybe the policing authority would best be formed through the county level councillors?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I can't say I ever heard of all the mismanagement. The good side to it all is if you have two or more candidates for election, you increase competition. Increased competition generally raises the bar, as well as they have to fight to keep their job as well as getting it. Of course the accountability, like if they get up to something you don't like, you have the chance to fire them, not just relying on their superiors to.

Out in the States, most local (county) government officials are elected, like tax inspectors, etc.

People most like it because the voting turnout seems to be fairly high (can't find any stats though). It does mean a lot of voting, but they try and group it all together.

The only downside is the endless bloody campaign signs everywhere. Loads next to each other, but everywhere. Not only does it make the place look a mess, but it does cause a bit of agro. They were lethal during the hurricanes.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

No, just desperate for some attention grabbing headlines... :rolleyes:

However I agree with you that the idea is totally barking.

There's enough political BS getting in the way of the Police doing their jobs without this sort of thing.

Do we really want a system like they have in America where Sheriff, District Attorneys and Judges etc are elected with the result that they go for "populist" actions and prosecutions to make them look good to the voters and the media, even if what they are doing is *not* serve Justice?

My response is *HELL NO*!!

Justice is supposed to be impartial and unbiased, not based on what looks good to the electorate!
__________________

We already have those. They're called MPs!

Communities already can, but those who administer and oversee those policies are not and should not be elected on what looks good in the papers!

We get enough of that nonsense already with the Government artificially skewing Police priorities with all sorts of targets and league tables, the Police should be left alone to do their job of making the streets safer!
__________________

Which means that they go for the policies that play best in the press and the media and if that means some poor sap gets 25 years for stealing a slice of pizza or http://www.facts1.com/general/news.htm#pizza because of that policy, well, "it's what the people voted for, isn't it"???

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I don't remember Howard saying that the elected commisioner would be a party member, can anyone supply the quote where he did?

Incog, go back to Weacock Farm before the police (back when we had a goverment that was actually tough on crime) blitzed the area and sorted things out.
Think of the years where the problems were ignored and the suffering caused by the louts and vandals.
Now imagine if there was a commisioner who would be acting as the voice of the people to the ear of the cheif Constable advising him of the community's concerns.
The commissioner would be able to advise the cheif constable of what people in that community want done.
Now the Cheif Constable will be able to decide what his forces do, just as he can now. In fact all that is happening is an unknown police authority is being replaced by a known and easily contactable person.

The commisioner will have no say in sentancing Graham, no idea where you get that idea from.

Lets say you have a police force that's concentrating on going after motorists rather than muggers and burglars, then the commisioner would be in a position to try and change that.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

A typical Police Authority (as exampled here by Derbyshire) comprises
7 Councillors representing Derbyshire County Council
2 Councillors representing Derby City Council
3 Members of the Magistrates courts committee
5 Independent Members appointed by the Police Authority, under a process that involves the Home Secretary.

So that's nine people already elected to represent us, three from within the judiciary (which seems sensible) and five to represent the local community. Overall that sounds pretty sensible although I do wonder how those five are appointed and, given the predominance of elected councillors, why their presence is necessary.

So, I stick with Howard is mad as a balloon but wonder if the make up of the Police Authority could not be more transparent and accountable.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I didn't say they would have say in sentencing but they could, as you yourself pointed out, influence Police priorities based on "what the people want" (translation: what's most likely to get them re-elected).

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Awful idea from a clueless fool who won't get in anyway. Policing should be done by policemen, not politicians, in the same way that engineering should be done by engineers, not accountants. Besides, it's hard enough to get people to vote for who should be Prime Minister, let alone getting the population to absorb enough information to make an *informed* choice. Democracy without proper information about the candidates isn't actually democracy, it's just whoever shouts loudest getting all the pie. You might as well have a reality TV show (you could call it Police Academy...).

Taking things to absurd extremes, if you want to employ someone to make the tea you make an informed judgement on their tea making skills, not on whether they look good in a suit or on TV, kiss lots of babies or support the death penalty and birching.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

This election is already annoying. Have you see the tory posters? they are some of the most simplstic and stupid comments ever. Comments like 'Really, how hard is it to keep a hospital clean?" and "If you put more police on the street they will catch more criminals. its not rocket science is it?" make both issue seems black and white. MRSA is a difficult bug to kill as it is immune to a lot of cleaners and most criminals dont commit crimes near a police man.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I do not agree with the idea of a single commissioner. That is clearly flawed. I do however strongly believe that unelected quangos are not the way to go.

Police Authorities and indeed many other organisations with no election process get members appointed who will have some sort of agenda, probably one that fits in with the appointees ideals. Even where we have councillors appointed to the committee, it will be those who have viewpoints on the issue at hand. Who is to say the will act without bias?

Whatever happens the Chief Constable will be responsible for ensuring law and order as is his legal duty, and this will apply to all aspects of the law. However within that remit areas can be prioritised.

Amongst other things the Police Authority decides the police budget (there is a specific part of the Council Tax). At present there seems to be no direct way that those paying this tax have any say in it's amount. Many might agree to pay more, if they could be told this will mean a visible community presence? Communities today, may be able to complain to the local police about specific issues and request they prioritise them, but that is a toothless process. Where officials are elected, to the overseeing body, the Chief Constable would have to sit up and take note, of what they say.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

There's a hospital in Essex which is MRSA free because the managment concentrated on getting staff to wash their hands and the cleaners do proper jobs.
They've saved money because of it through patients actually recovering faster through the reduction in all post surgury infections, not just MRSA.

If there were more police on the streets rather than stuck behind mobile speed cameras or in the police station spending the majority of their time filling out forms, then they'd be more likely to be close by when a crime takes place rather than taking an hour to respond to a 999 call because a convicted murderer is pulling down your fence and threatening your life (speaking from personal experience here)

So I have no problem with those posters, after all, what they say is true, just wish labour could understand that rather than spending its time coming up with putting the faces of two Jews on pigs (unrepentantly too!)... some attempt to get the BNP vote perhaps? :rolleyes:
__________________

What would you prefer?
A police force that spends a large chunk of its time targeting motorists in non-accident black spots such as a straight bit of motorway, while doing bugger all about the gangs of kids going down the street smashing windows, scratching cars (even torching them)

Or

A police force which has been directed to target dangerous drivers and also tackle the trouble making kids?


Now if the commissioner in elected and doesn't do as his manefesto stated, then at least he can be vote out, can the same be done with current police authorities?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Last time I looked speeding was a crime. It amazes me that people get so hung up about speed cameras. If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime. Better still stop whizzing around my neighbourhood threatening the lives of my children you selfish, impatient dolts!

Speed cameras are precisely the sort of populist cause chase voting politicians like to latch on to.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

The point is that the current situation is the result of the Government playing around with stupid targets and initiatives *instead* of letting the Police get on with their jobs.

The business with speed cameras set in locations which aren't dangerous is, I agree entirely, ridiculous and needs to be sorted out, but that's only one minor detail that doesn't take up much time, unlike the sheer amount of paperwork that officers are now faced with every time they stop someone etc.

Having some elected official come in will only result in them trying to get the Police to pander to what looks good to the public, rather than what actually does most to reduce crime and, come the election, anyone who wants the job will be trotting out the same old rhetoric we already see from the political parties trying to claim that *they* are the party (person) of Law and Order and that the other one has failed because of X, Y or Z.

This helps nobody.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Speed cameras are just one issue though. I don't disagree that traffic crime needs a level of enforcement. The human and monetary cost of road accidents is just as real as many other law and order issues. But there needs to be a balance and unfortunately the police are loosing the battle over cameras with public opinion new seeing them as revenue generating, not law enforcement.

But we digress.

It is also worth noting that the majority of paperwork that keeps officers tied to desks rather than out on the streets, is due to our legal systems and rights of the accused. Untill the judicicial system is altered, whatever might be said about paperwork cutting is doomed to failure.

Essentially defence lawyers are now looking first, not at what the strength of the evidence is, but whether all the techinicalities of proceedures have been followed. That is one whole set of paperwork needed to demonstrate compliance. Then there is the hunt for any documentation that might discredit the evidence. Another tier of paperwork. So it goes on and on. And it's not just the police that suffer, it happens to day in all walks of life due to our ever increasing compensation and human rights cultures.

But we digress.

A police commissioner, I'm sure will not work. Too much power in the hands of a single individual with no-one to excercise restraint is not a good idea. A more accountable police authority may not solve the ills of excessive paperwork, and the like but might have their ear closer to the people, and so influence the policing priorities closer to the wishes of the people.

It should be remembered that a fundamental principle of policing in this country is one of "policing by consent" of the public. Surely elected authorities is a logical extension and implementation of that consent.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Provided all those elected are truly representitive of the people they are to represent.Doesn't really work in the House of Commons or Lords.If it is done on the samo,samo PARTY lines it will be disasterous. :(

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I have to disagree. The paperwork seems mostly about the government imposing their targets and making sure they're not discriminating.

I have no objection to records being kept to ensure that the innocent are not prosecuted or convicted and that procedures are observed properly (ask the victims of miscarriages of justice where confessions have been faked or evidence has been corrupted), to weaken that system is to weaken the entire priciples of Justice.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Even the most simple of policing procedures today is governed by the rules necessary for collection of evidence to either secure a conviction at court, and/or alternatively to disprove a complaint against the police. The paperwork that generates is absolutely frightening, even for the most simple of cases.

Paperwork is one of the reasons why the simplest offences are now being dealt with by fixed penalty. It deals with offenders promptly and ensures there is some punishment, without tying officers up. The major saving to police is the much reduced paperwork that could easily eat 4 hours (and that is not an exaggeration), for a simple bout of excessive swearing. That 4 hours is entirely due to the various forms needed to enable the CPS to put the case to court, and offset the scrutiny of the Defence. Of course some paperwork is still needed to document the offence if the FPN is not paid up, but at least the majority can now be settled. For a more complex case, inevitably the time involved in paperwork rises signigficantly.

Many additional paperwork tiers were brought in simply due to Human Rights Legislation, in other words more means of somebody perceiving discrimination. Unless the police are to be made exempt from such legislation I cannot see how the paperwork can be avoided, and I'm sure exemption would be an admittance that such legislation had failed.

It is clearly not in anyone's interest that there be miscariages of justice. Until someone can come up with a better system of ensuring compliance, most police paperwork will unavoidable. That is the world we now live in that we cannot simply accept the word of someone that what they said they did, was done.

But to return to the original point of this thread, if the idea of commissioners is flawed (and I think there is concensus on that), and disagreement on the need for elected Police Authorities, are we saying that there are sufficient controls in place that make the police accountable to their communities, dealing with the real issues of concern to the community, rather than just playing lip service? If we believe that our local police do not do what we need them to do, how do we improve that accountability?

Oh and by the way before anyone gets the impression that I might be anti police, entirely the opposite is true. I did serve as a Special Constable for a number of years.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

What are your children doing playing on the motorway I mentioned?!?!?!


So instead of the police tackling what the community actually wants them to tackle, you'd prefer they continue ignoring troublesome areas simply because its too much hassle for them?

Of course with the commissioner being held accountable to the people, and accesabble to the media, he'll be in an idea position to explain the actions of the police, so if there is a reason why they can't tackle something the public want, he can explain it.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I think that the object of the poster was to put the tory leaders on the pigs rather than jews. There doesnt seem to be any attempt to attack them for being jews, after all they wouldnt do something as it would obviously backfire.

Moving on...you had a convicted murder pulling down your fence :erm:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

So there's absolutely no accidents on the any motorway then? No pileups caused by drivers not being able to slow in time to avoid a crash?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Yes I did. When he wa 15 he didn't like the look of someone so beat them to death.
The police took about an hour to arrive.
Shortly after that incident a new beat bobby was called in (thanks to the actions of one of the attending officers and some of my family members) and sorted the area out but by then I'd had 27 outstanding and uninvestigated cases (you're supposed to get gold status after 3!) and I just wanted to get out of the area.

Now if there had been a well known and accessable commissioner, I could have written to him about the issues and got something done sooner.
__________________


I know it's a different subject to a police comissioner, but in that example, was the accident caused by excessive speed or lack of concentration and driving too close?

If you believe it was due to excessive speed, then extending that logic there should be no similar accidents with vehicles driving under the speed limit.
However we know speed is something like 8th in the top ten factors causing accidents, with being too close, lack of concentration, and driving while tired above it.
Speed cameras won't catch anyone driving erraticaly or dangerously, or while tired, or tailgaiting.
Police in a patrol car can.
Now if a commissioner said that part of his manifesto was to get more police onto the motorways to tackle dangerous driving, I'd vote for him (as long as his other policies were sensible too of course)

As for the claim (made by others) that people who are against speed cameras are against ones in towns, that's bovine excriment.
I don't know anyone who objects to speed cameras that are correctly placed, such as by schools (which in my opinion should have a speed limit of 20mph) and high accident areas like a straight bit of road with a crossing at the end where some lunatic drivers may speed along far too dangerously and risk hitting someone on the crossing.
I'm also pro red light jumping cameras as these can capture dangerous drivers.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I agree with having accessible police commissioners however I still think the idea of a body being elected every 5 years on PARTY lines is a crazy one.We need to be able to have an apolitical solution.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Can you please supply the quote where Howard said it would be a party political comissioner? :)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

OF course I can't because he didn't.I'm just pointing out how ALL elections end up.You honestly think that if there was a system set up to have an election that it won't split into any political party divide with Labour,Conservative,Liberal and Other NOT standong for election.In my experience even Independants are seldom independant. :rolleyes:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Wouldnt this mean campaining? which costs money? So the candidates may have to be funded which creates a problem.

Also they always have thier eye on re-election so they will always try to do public pleasing actions and the public are not experts in policing

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

but we are experts on suffering from crime...

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I suggest you read the above again: "rather than what actually does most to reduce crime".

Now imagine if one of these elected officials decided they were going to have an "initiative" to protect kids from paedophiles by putting Police patrols around parks and playgrounds and schools.

How can anyone argue against that? How could someone else get elected by saying they were going to take these Police *away* from these patrols when their opponent would shout from the rooftops that they were endangering children...???

Of course the fact that actually it would make virtually *no* difference and it *would* be taking Police away from where they are needed and could be much more useful would get lost in the rhetoric.

The "initiative" would be nothing more than a "political" tool to grab the voters attention and ensure re-election and not be of any actual use in reducing crime.

That is the sort of thing I am talking about.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Then read the proposal again, the cheif constable will be able to say "no, that's not what we're going to do as it won't make any difference" the media is likely to be involved, if the commisioner is trying to get publicity for himself, giving both parties a chance to state their case, and the facts from the cheif constable are likely to win out.

However, lets say there are loads of kids in one street terrorising people, damaging property, stealing from local shops, bunking off school, joy riding, dealing drugs and generally being unsavoury.
The Cheif Constable would have a hard time justifying not targetting that if the commisioner suggests it.

The commisioner could also push for things such as speed cameras in accident blackspots where they are needed rather than places which will get the police the most revenue (when was the last time you saw an accident on the M275 slip road going out of Portsmouth? Or down on Cambridge road near St George Rd?)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

The public/media's obsession with the siting of speed cameras is an excellent example of why this proposal is indeed a non-starter.








(PS. If you don't speed why would speed cameras be an issue (beyond, perhaps, civil liberties concerns). The argument always thrown up is that cameras are not about safety but revenue. OK, stop speeding and cut off the revenue stream.)
__________________

Shouldn't that be 'independent' teach? I dunno, standards today! ;) :)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Err, so what you're saying, then, is that this elected official *won't* be able to change Police policy if the Police don't want it to change...???

I'm sorry? We're talking about Tabloid style media coverage here, since when did facts ever enter into it?!

I think a Chief Constable should have a hard time justifying that *anyway* without needing someone elected to tell him that!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

We're talking Cable Forum Current Affairs here, when did facts ever enter into it?! :)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

A gatso camera costs between £20,000 and £40,000 to install.
A PC starts on about £20,000 once training has been completed.
Which would be more effective at tackling total crime?
A £40,000 speed camera or 2 police constables?

The main objection people have with speeding being classed as a crime is that there is no victim.
If someone does 80 down the motorway, who's the victim?
Sure, you're going to say "but if they crash into someone because they can't stop in time then there's a victim" but speed didn't cause it, dangerous driving, by being too close for instance, caused the accident and no speed camera will ever catch someone driving dangerously under the speed limit.
A policeman in a patrol car however can.


I assumed you knew what the PA's powers were rather than just blindly commenting on something you're not well informed of, but for any others who don't know what PA's actually do:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Rubbish. "If you don't speed then you've nothing to worry about" is NOT the answer. It's a human trait that concentration will waver from time to time. So why should I be penalised for temporarily displaying a factor which is built in to all humans?

Speed cameras do NOT save lives. They do NOT prevent accidents. They just take photographs. A policeman on the side of the road is going to prevent speeding. If I'm driving at 40 mph in a 30 zone then I'll get snapped and rightly so will be punished and the next time I'm in that area I'll be more careful. So how about measures which will prevent or discourage me from speeding the first time I go there?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I agree that there should be better signing of speed limits. No argument. Speed limits are just that limits; the highest speed you can drive. If your concentration wavers that much.... and if your concentration wavers you are driving without due care and attention as well as speeding :) Speed cameras do not save lives? Not my understanding of the situation from the figures released last year. As I say this a populist cause; the sort of thing this proposal (notice how I got us back on thread there) would see being seized upon by the easy vote-grabbers.
__________________

Are you replacing cameras every year to balance that particular budget then?!!

But I don't agree that the reduction in traffic police is numb.


(notice how I got us back off topic there?! Sorry!)

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Do speed cameras automatically cause a car's engine to lower in RPM? Do they automatically apply the vehicle's braking system?

No, it's the thought that he/she will get caught which is what causes the driver to slow down.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

If someone was running with the pledge that they would invest in bobbies instead of gatso's then they'd get my vote.
A policeman can do a far better job of improving road safety than a gatso, and they can be used in other areas to help tackle a variety of crimes.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

It doesn't happen often but here Xaccers posts something I can say makes perfect sense.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

So, returning to the thread.... isn't this precisely the point that some of us have been making as to why this proposal should not be implemented. Populist cause = vote=knee-jerk, ineffective policing.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Oi you cheeky what not! :P
__________________

Sorry? Having more police is ineffective policing?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Suggesting speed cameras are ineffective is a highly populist cause. Having more police is a separate issue; I'd like to see more police (and traffic police to catch all those middle lane hoggers, dozy bs and speeders where there are no cameras). But every politician is going to say they'll recruit more police. They do it all the time.

Off for the night now. G'dnight all. And let's be careful out there.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Xaccers , I hate to point this out - especially when Andyl chose not to - but you ignored his point about the economic comparison. We can't simply compare salaries to one-off install costs,

Obviously the salary is a recurring charge and the salary is only part of the cost of employing someone (not sure what figures the police use but one of the companys that I've worked with used a +80% figure on salaries to include additional costs like training/admin/etcetera). Similarly the Gatsos would have running costs (simply mailing someone to inform them that they've been 'caught' costs money) hence the comparison would/should be moderately complex.

This ties back into andyl's point, I think, in that someone seeking election could go for a populist, emotional comparison (1 Gatso = 2 police on the beat) which might get them elected but would not necessarily be accurate or achievable

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

My point is that for the money you get a heck of a lot more with an aditional policeman than you do with a gatso, after all, when was the last time a gatso caught anyone doing anything other than driving over the limit?

As for popularist policies, surely the police should be tackling things which actually affect the comunity rather than concentrating on things which get them the most money for least effort or matters which the community don't care about.
For instance, if the police tackled the most common crime, and that turned out to be littering but most people were affected by burglaries.
Which would you prefer they went for?
Tackling the most common crime, or tackling something popularist which actually affects people's quality of life?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

And your point is *what* exactly? :confused:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

You seemed to be under the impression that the commissioner would be able to dictate to the cheif constable how to do his job, showing a lack of understanding of the current PA's powers and responsibilities.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Er, gatsos are designed solely to catch people driving over the limit (or jumping lights) and then, because people insist on breaking the law (and then whining about getting caught), they generate revenue (or as you put it, the most money for the least effort). And they save lives. All round a pretty good investment. Already said I'd like to see more police - and I'd be happier if gatso revenues were going towards that aim and not into wider Treasury coffers. Speeders don't like cameras because they are more effective than wandering policemen/women at the specific job they do. They're lousy at doing the jobs they're not designed to do though. And I think you'll find the community often does care about speeding; that's why people, like me, lobby for more not less of them in our neighbourhoods (I agree speeding is less of an issue on motorways, but then most speed traps aren't on motorways) because of the selfish actions of so many drivers. But I still think Howard's proposal is nuts.

PS Probably me but I don't really understand your argument about tackling the most common crime. Then again I was convicted of littering in my wayward youth!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Quoting Michael Howard from the original link:

"The commissioner will have the powers which existing police authorities have," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme'

Quoting from your quote above:

"The Chief Constable of Humberside Police is accountable to the Police Authority for the performance of the force, although the force itself is under his direction and control. He has 'operational independence', which means neither the Home Secretary nor the Police Authority can instruct him as to how he should carry out policing duties.

"He must, however, 'have regard to' the Police Authority's local Policing Plan and carry out other duties required by legislation and/or the Home Secretary." (My emphasis)

So let's just follow the idea through for a moment:

1) The People elect an official to be their "voice" and express their views to the Chief Constable

2) The Chief Constable must "carry out duties required by legislation and/ or the Home Secretary"

3) The Chief Constable must only "have regard to" the views of the people and their elected representative.

4) But the elected representative, in order to get *re*-elected, is going to have to convince the public that he or she is doing a good job and getting their points across, but they can't if the Chief Constable decides that it goes against legislation or the wishes of the Home Secretary.

So we end up with an elected representative who can actually *acheive* nothing if it doesn't fit in with the existing structure of operations and is thus more or less a total waste of space unless they try to justify their position by attempting to raise some sort of media campaign/ public protest to force some sort of populist policy action through, implying that the Chief Constable isn't doing his job properly.

I can think of much better things to spend money on.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

You end up with commissioner who can work within the system to ensure the police are tackling issues which the community want them to tackle, rather than spending time and money on other matters.
So you get what you want, someone who cannot just campain on popularist issues, can't claim they'll get the police to stake out all parks incase of paedophiles, can get the police to impliment curfues to curtail youth crime.
You get someone accountable and removable which we currently don't have.
__________________

Speed cameras do not save lives.
The fatality rate on the roads has been decreasing year on year by approx 5% from 1950 to 1993, but from 93 to 01 this decrease averaged less than 3% and from 99 to 01 it was less than 0.5%!
Meaning that the roads are not getting safer, more people are being involved in fatal accidents.
They have not had a detrimental effect on the percentage of vehicles (not just cars) exceeding the speed limit either (according to national statistics)

Very few accidents have ever been been caused by normal motorists exceeding a speed limit so, it's hardly surprising that efforts to enforce speed limits are not reducing accidents. Read what the Chief Constable of Durham was reported as saying:

Mr Garvin explained: "I actually believe in casualty reduction and trying to make the roads safer but, having looked at the accident statistics in this area, we find that if you break down the 1,900 collisions we have each year only three per cent involve cars that are exceeding the speed limit. Just 60 accidents per year involve vehicles exceeding the speed limit.
"You then need to look at causes of these 60 accidents. Speed may be a factor in the background but the actual cause of the accident invariably is drink-driving or drug-driving. Drug-taking is becoming more of a problem. In 40 per cent of fatal road accidents in this area one or more of the people involved have drugs in their system."

Many accidents were caused by fatigue, although one of the most common causes of crashes was the failure of drivers to watch out for oncoming vehicles when turning right. "The cause of accidents is clearly something different than exceeding the speed limit and we ought to be looking at those other factors," Mr Garvin said.

If normal motorists speeding isn't causing accidents, then it has clearly been utter folly to base a road safety policy on a problem that does not exist. But that's exactly what we've done. We have done it because people in and around Government have a series of oversimplified and mistaken beliefs.

A study by the Transport Research Laboratory has shown that vehicle activated signs which can be set at the speed limit (well below speed camera guidlines) are 3 times more effective at reducing vehicle speed, even after the driver has been passing the sign for 3 years.
The study also demonstrated a substantial reduction in accidents where the signs were used.
They also cost a heck of a lot less than gatsos or truvelos!
Now, I'd want my commissioner to campain for more of these signs and fewer gatsos as they are factually more effective at increasing road safety.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

And you can achieve the same thing by telling the goverment and the opposition to stop playing political football with the Police and just let them get on with their jobs!

And that would be a damned sight cheaper too.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Who's going to tell the police what their job is or should the cheif constable decide himself with nothing actually pushing him to tackle crime?
Who's to hold the police accountable for their actions?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I believe that the system that is in place at the moment is more than adequate.

We really don't need another layer of elected officials.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Oh ye gods, Xaccers...! :rolleyes:

I think the Police know damn well what their job is and they're probably absolutely fed up to the back teeth with people *telling* them what their job is...!!!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

This wouldn't be another layer though incog, this is a replacement, and unlike the current system, this would be more open and accountable and be able to respond to the actual concerns of the community, wether that be by tackling different crimes, or educating the community that their percieved issues are incorrect.
Also, instead of 7-9 officials, it would be just one.

Really? Then how come I had 27 f'ing undealt with incidents????
Why were people afraid to park their cars by their homes?
Why were the firebrigade such regular visitors?
Why did it take an hour to respond to a 999 call?
Why when I told the police that a wanted criminal was in the area did they take so long to arrive and were so obvious, that he escaped?

And you wonder why I think it would be a good idea to have someone actually accountable for the police's failings and successes???
You live through months of hell, not knowing if you're going to come home to find your windows smashed, your home broken into, your belongings stolen, your house burnt down, your car vandalised.
Spend your time in your home walking round with a metal bar because you don't know when they're next going to break in!
You see your dreams be ripped out from under you and see how you feel.

I was lucky in the end, a very good policeman realised I was being victimised and got the ball rolling at about the same time as family contacts intervined to have something done, but not everyone is that lucky.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

An independent report last year said speed cameras save on average 100 lives per year. And they raised £20m. Top! Extending your argument, should we scrap speed limits as speed is not such an important factor? But I will say that I like those vehicle activated signs and would guess they are quite effective (but there's no way I would concede they're cheaper than gatsos because gatsos, as I say, raised £20m last year thanks to the fundraising efforts of speeding drivers who can't quite grapple with the legal entity that is a speed limit). But a speeding driver that freqently uses a route with a vehicle activated sign will soon get wise to the fact that s/he will not be punished for breaking the law and so will return to old ways. And, there is a flaw in your argument. If vehicle activated signs produce a 'substantial reduction in accidents' then surely speed is indeed a factor?!!

And I'd also be interested in how serious those 60 speed related collisions in Durham were in relation to the others. Volume does not tell anything like the whole story.

I also don't dispute that there are other causes of accidents which need more effective policing and that we need more traffic police* - and more proactive traffic police at that - to achieve that aim.

What will happen with the proposed system is that topics like this will become dominant when, as always with politics, there are more important things to hand. Leaving aside for one moment the argument as to whether speed cameras reduce accidents, surely we should applauding their effectiveness at detecting a crime and ensuring an offender faces justice (whilst covering local authority prosecution costs and returning a dividend to the Treasury). I mean this is the cause of so much angst with other offences - that people get away with it and don't pay the price. :) From where I'm standing this is not an issue worthy of lengthy political debate, but is precisely the sort of issue that will be raised countless times by aspiring politicians under Howard's proposals.

EDIT: NB noticed an error on one of my earlier posts which suggests I think the reduction in traffic police wasn't numb. It is.
__________________

This looks pretty accountable to me: http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/introduction.htm and the (relatively) good news for you: http://www.operationscorpion.org.uk/...r_0502010a.htm

Tell you what though, you don't make Leighton Buzzard sound a good place to live.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Anyone who has worked in a medium to big company will tell you, is that the reason why most middle to upper management are such useless articles is that they get a job, and they have some security in it. So long as there isn't a lot of internal competition from below for the job (and sometimes, even if there is it doesn't make a difference), then the employee can generally sit there and just do a mediocre job. Doesn't have to perform well, just keep the place ticking over. So long as he doesn't do a bad job, he won't be sacked, but there is no drive to do a good job. If he takes a chance he could be fired, but if he doesn't then he won't. If someone knows their job is on the line they will always try harder to do a better job,

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Which is precisely why vehicle activated signs will have only a temporary effect.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

An independent report by who? and based on what figures

raised! robbed more like.

Of course speed is a factor, speed will be a factor in every vehicular accident because if you're not moving you not likely to crash into anything. But also factor in weather, road condition, driver skills/ experience, drink/drugs, daylight/night, time of day. Speed will always be a factor but it very rarely the only factor or the main one - for the cause of the accident. I do concede that speed will probably the main factor influencing the possible severity of the accident.

Of Course Speed limits are essential, anyone doing 40 or 50 mph in a built-up 30mph residential area deserves to be nicked - no argument.

But what is annoying is where false low limits are implemented on perfectly good fast roads.

There is a by-pass near where I live that was built only recently. It is a dual carriageway it is 3.5 miles long and is as straight as anything, there are no pedestrian walkways or crossings and there is a seperate cycleway. Yet this road has a 40mph limit and cameras all the way along it.

Yet, I can turn of this by-pass onto a country road that is single carriageway, has loads of tight corners and concealed entrances and has a poor quality surface and the limit is 60mph - go figure.

So because they do not raise revenue they're not as cheap??

These signs not only advise of speed limits but they advise of sharp corners and blind summits etc -you know "accident blackspots" where cameras are supposed to be situated to save lives - not on straight roads to raise revenue.

Remember they're called "safety cameras" now - funny that at "accident blackspots" they're now installing vehicle actuated signs instead of cameras.

I've covered that one

I wont argue at that.

In some cases I would call it entrapment not "justice"

But driving community are making it an issue worthy of debate. Therefore it is a valid issue

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

OK, lot to respond to there monsieur Pierre.

The report: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_029193.hcsp
Summary of its findings: "The report showed that at the camera sites assessed:

· There was a 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI).

· There were 870 fewer KSIs per year, including more than 100 fewer deaths.

· There was a 33% fall in injury accidents - 4,030 fewer per year.

· There was a 35% reduction in the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured.

· Average speeds at the most recently-introduced camera sites fell by around 7% or 2.4mph.

· Average speed at urban sites fell by around 8%.

· The number of vehicles speeding at new camera sites dropped by 71%.

· 79% of people surveyed supported the use of cameras to reduce casualties. Meanwhile today, Brake, the national road safety charity, released survey results showing that 78% of drivers supported the use of speed cameras outside schools. "

And the list of casualty reductions by area:

"Percentage reduction in deaths and serious injuries at camera sites

Cambridgeshire 55%
Derbyshire 17%
Lancashire 58%
Lincolnshire 18%
Norfolk 56%
North Wales 68%
Northamptonshire 46%
Nottingham (City) 33%
Staffordshire 30%
Strathclyde 34%
Thames Valley 43%
Warwickshire 42%

[Although Cleveland and Essex had reductions in the frequency of deaths and serious injuries at camera sites, there was insufficient data for estimates to be produced for these areas]

Percentage reductions in personal injury collisions per area per year at camera sites

Avon and Somerset 13%
Gloucestershire 23%
Bedfordshire 42%
Cambridgeshire 21%
Cleveland 50%
Derbyshire 23%
Essex 23%
Fife 15%
Lancashire 54%
Leicestershire 11%
Lincolnshire 24%
London 35%
Norfolk 41%
North Wales 41%
Northamptonshire 46%
Nottingham (City) 16%
Nottinghamshire (exc City) 12%
South Wales 32%
Dyfed-Powys 28%
Gwent 39%
South Yorkshire 60%
Staffordshire 20%
Thames Valley 28%
Warwickshire 23%
West Yorkshire 72%
Wiltshire 64%

[Although Hampshire and Strathclyde had reductions in the frequency of personal injury collisions at camera sites, there was insufficient data for reliable estimates for these areas]

A number of other areas have since joined the partnership scheme but too late to be included in today's figures."



No doubt there are lies, damn lies and statistics but whatever, speeding remains a crime and gatsos an effective way of detecting that crime. If people are unhappy with a speed limit on a particular road/area, then they should campaign to have it raised/lowered but to whine about cameras when they get caught is preposterous - they are not robbed, they get caught). We can't choose which laws we can and can't obey (well we can but if we get caught..)

Vehicle activated signs (VAS) are not cheap (in the context of speeding) because they don't catch people who then pay fines and generate revenue. So no they're not cheaper. That's what I said. I also said I can see that VASs can be effective, but that effectivenesss will be short lived as muppet drivers realise they will not be hit in the pocket and on their licence. But I accept unreservedly that vehicle activated signs should be used more widely to warn of road dangers.


The entrapment argument works only where drivers can claim they were not adequately warned of speed limits. Again I accept this can and does happen - I'm campaigning where I live for better signing of the widely flouted 20mph limit and was appalled to discover the stupid rules that exist (it's a zone so you can only have signs on the entry to the zone, not within it. How nuts is that?!). I have also been told,in writing, by the police that they cannot enforce 20mph limits (the logic of this eludes me) and that it is up to the council to use traffic calming to prevent abuse. But in my experience most but not all roads are adequately signed (and if you're not sure then caution should be your watchword!) and, for that matter, cameras are preceded by warning signs. Difficult to argue an entrapment case in such circumstances.

It may be an issue worthy of debate - hey, we're doing it now! - but it is a populist cause which ceaselessly focuses not on the crime, but the methods of detecting and dealing with that crime. Why do cameras hog the headlines rather than whether the limits in place are appropriate for the road conditions? Hmmm, could it be because people take it upon themselves to break the law and don't like paying up because of it.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

True, when you look at rules for the siting of cameras. "For a site to qualify for a fixed camera, it must have had at least four crashes that involve death or serious injury and/or at least eight crashes involving personal injuries in the past three years over a kilometre distance."

Note that the cause of the accident does not have be speed. However the figures you quote may appear impressive but they're not all that impressive when you dig deeper.

3 serious accidents and 8 bumps are all that is required. So if the camera has prevented a serious accident for 3 years it would be deemed to be 100% effective - yes?

So then why is the best score you can get 68%? that must mean that over the following 3 years of the camera being sited you've still had a serious accident at that spot, and the figures for other injuries are even less impressive.

Also if you want see the lengths that these "safety camera partnerships" will go to, to catch you check this out. Surely you can't defend some of these:

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/van.htm

Now, you know I can't argue against that. But it is the wider issues about Gatsos that is ****ing off the average motorist and actions like in that above link.

Again a fair point that I can't really argue against. Apart from the fact the speed limits should be set correctly with out having to campaign for common sense.

I don't think anyone, as I have always expressed, will argue against correctly sited cameras where there is an obvious safety concern.

People get piddled off by being restricted in their ability to travel at speed in locations where it is patently safe to do so but are restricted by badly sited cameras and or by practices shown in that link.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Halloo! I wish to remind you this is NOT a thread about speed cameras? Can we stay on topic please? :tu:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

As I stated earlier, even after 3 years VAS are still more effective at reducing vehicle speeds than cameras.

The police routinely break the law when issuing NIP's by not using recorded or registered delivery
They claim that speed cameras are "to prevent speeding" but then hide gatsos behind street signs, and mobile cameras in hedges, and plan to use a camera which can spot vehicles 2Km away, how is that preventing speeding?
They park illegally as the police are not above the law.
They tail gate on dual carrigeways trying to get motorists to break the speed limit.

I want a commisioner to hold the police to account and get them to do their jobs properly.


The increase in overall road deaths suggests that the cameras and VAS are not placed where they would prevent the most deaths, but in places where they are most likely to produce revenue.

An AA survey lists 173 miles of the most dangerous roads in the country. So how may of the thousands of speed cameras are on these killer-roads? Four! No wonder we now have over 1,000,000 people persecuted every year whilst the number of road-deaths is actually rising. The police are in it for the money!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Also:
So, speed cameras must not be put in places where other measures can be taken to improve road safety.
So why were some installed on a brand new dual carrigeway, or is the highways agency deliberately building dangerous roads?
__________________

If a commisioner pledged to reign in the police and make them do their jobs properly targetting dangerous roads rather than roads with high income, increasing police patrols, tackling serious crime, then I'd vote for them, and if they failed, I'd vote them out.
Something I can't do with the PA!
So come on Howard, hurry up and win the election so we can get the country sorted again.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

People, this is NOT a thread about speed cameras. Can we please keep it on topic?

Going back to the original point, I think it would be a bad idea. It could (theoretically) cause the police to devote more resources to certain crimes, as they would gain the most publicity for the elected officials running the police.

Some may argue this happens now, but the way the police are set up, they are supposed to be independant from any political party.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

But they would still be independant, even if the commisioner was a member of a political party.
Why would it be a bad thing for the police to change their emphasis to tackling crimes which the public want them to tackle like vandals and burglaries?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Well the short answer is: it wouldn't.

As I recall the police are public servants funded by our taxes, and as such the public should have a say on what they focus some of their resources on.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Because I think that at least part of their emphasis would be on solving those crimes that would help the commissioner be re-elected.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

:tu: :tu: :tu: :tu: :tu:

Spot on!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

*Because* they've got the Government on their bloody backs using them as a political football and adding new layers of bureaucracy instead of giving them the money letting them get on with their jobs!!!

See this report from 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/...00/1329463.stm

"The head of the Police Federation is due to renew his call for a boost in officer numbers, saying current targets are insufficient to fight crime effectively.

"The organisation's chairman, Fred Broughton, is expected to criticise Home Secretary Jack Straw for leaving the service "powerless to prevent crime". "

Now since then we've seen plenty of "initiatives" and promises of new officers and new funding, but we've also seen rises in violent crime and burglaries.

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...423380,00.html this report from January 2005:

"BRITAIN has one of the worldââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s most ineffective police forces and highest crime rates, according to an authoritative report to be published this week.

"It says the police spend too much time behind desks instead of tackling and preventing crime. The result, it says, is that crime is †œa very low-risk activity for the criminalââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�.

And http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...423069,00.html this report which refers to Scotland, but is IMO entirely applicable to the entire UK:

"POLICE will refuse to respond to †œminorâ € � car crashes, fires or disputes between neighbours under plans to cut bureaucracy and put more officers on the beat.

"Police chiefs claim that they have been swamped by government legislation that is putting mounting pressure on the service and tying up officers with unnecessary paperwork."

We already *have* elected officials who are responsible for overseeing what the Police do, but they're too busy pushing them to reach "targets" to make the politicians look good than to fight crime.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

That's an old issue that this government has failed to sort out.

Again an old issue that this government has failed to sort out

Couldn't agree more, which is why this idea is a good idea. Instead of having to impress the politicians the police will have to impress the public.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Which would have to be crimes that the public want tackled.
If a commissioner spent his time getting the police to tackle crime that the public didn't particularly care about, and ignoring the crimes that the public do want something done about, then do you think the public will keep him in?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

The fact that this thread got so easily sidetracked onto the Gatso debate shows precisely the problem; simple to understand single issue campaigns will dominate whilst the more complex concepts of, for example, policing by consent, will get left behind as politicians take the easy option and no doubt once again adopt, I'm harder than yow (thought I'd go all brummy on you for no apparent reason), position.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

The reason why this thread got sidetracked onto speed cameras is because its a hot topic and an example of the police abusing their powers to make money and catch the easiest criminals rather than the ones that are causing the most detriment to the community.
And just because something is popular doesn't make it a bad thing.
Also, it's very difficult to get multiple issues across in a forum where people pick single issues out to tackle.

I have yet to see any reasoned argument against replacing the current un-accountable beurocratic PA's with an elected individual with the same powers.
So far the arguments against seem to be simply fear of the unknown or dislike becuase it's a tory idea.
At the moment you have the potential for 9 different voices going in 9 different directions as to what they believe the police should be doing.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Exactly my point. Depending on the areas in question, this could lead to the police ignoring crime in large sections of society just because the public don't know and don't care. Then when a young girl is murdered and the media get hold of it, the police will throw resources at it like there is no tommorrow.

For instance, the son of one of my mum's friends was murdered on his way home from the pub. Because it happened in an extremely rich area (even though it was 12 years ago now, the average house price was over £2milli on) , it was not reported in the local newspapers. The police caught the murderer, could not get a reliable conviction for Murder, so charged the criminal with ABH. In that case, it did not get reported in the local paper as the local populace didn't want the fuss of a crime on their doorstep. It is this sort of crime that I think a commissioner would not throw resources into. Our local police did, and the perpetrator is still (AFAIK) behind bars.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

But the point is that you're just going to end up with another bloody politician!

The "crimes that the public care about" are often the ones that get the most media coverage and make people go "something must be done!", but they are very often not necessarily the ones that really *need* to be dealt with.

Consider the Soham Murders and the fallout from that whereby everyone who wants to get a job working with children or even working in areas *close* to children has to have a Criminal Record check which has resulted in the Criminal Records Bureau being swamped with a mass of applications that caused and is still causing backlogs.

Now I appreciate that the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman was a tragedy, but they were, in all honesty, an *isolated* incident, however due to the press coverage, any elected Comissioner who did *not* immediately respond to public concerns or said "this is not a sensible use of resources" would end up, as I pointed out in previous messages, being faced with claims that "they are failing to protect children".

The end result would be that resources would end up being used up in an inefficient way because it would *look good* to the public.

This is the problem with elected officials.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Well i for one think this thread is bound to wander being as Speed Cameras are such a hot topic at the moment.

I have read this thread from the start and it has thrown up some very interesting points.

As for yours two comments above I will offer two things.

Firstly we have mods to decide whether it has strayed far too much off topic.

:angel:

Secondly sorry teach :angel:but a big sigh says and adds nothing as you often tell us you know where the unsubscribe option is ;)

Anyhows to drift back on to the topic i think the idea will work dependant on the area as down with us the Police are in the Councillors Pockets and vice versa.

So an independantly elected one could be a bonus.

:D

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Maybe, or maybe you may end up with a police force that responds to the publics fears and hopes.

Well, firstly, I would say that ALL crime needs to be dealt with. People get killed and go missing every day, of course one or two certain crimes gain media attention. This is usually because there's an angle to the story.

The yorkshire ripper was a high profile case with a lot of resources thrown at it, and if you were a young woman in West Yorkshire at the time you'd bloody well be glad that there were.

Likewise the Soham murdrers, if you were a parent around Ely and Cambridge during that time you'd want the police to throw evrything they had at finding the killer, they did and caught him quickly.

I really don't see your point.

Or we could let convicted child molestors and abusers to continue to work with children unchecked.!!!!

Which is why the two girls are no longer here!

I'm afraid a backlog of applications for jobs is a small price to pay.

So are you saying that when two young children both go missing that without press coverage the police would take their own sweet time about finding them????

As said before children go missing and/or killed all too often, and the police will put the same effort into finding them whether it's headline news or not. By the time these things reach the papers the police investigation is usually well underway.

I know it's not the way you want it to come across, but if I was a member of Hollys or Jessicas family, I'd be really offended by your post.

I couldn't disagree with you more.


look around the country and what are the publics issues with crime.

Anti-social behaviour
Burglery
Speed cameras

These issues are what needs to be tackled 24/7 and on what the police will be judged. Not isolated terrible public crimes as you suggest.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Judging by the media in General (and this forum in particular), it would seem the only thing an Elected commissioner would care about is speed cameras.. All those less glamourous crimes (you know the petty little ones like oohhh, murder, mugging etc) would get forgotten, unless there was an angle to them (like the victim being an old person, a young kid etc).

BTW, I believe that as thread starter, Incog does get some say as to what's on or off topic (even though she is not a Mod). She can certainly ask for the thread to be closed.
__________________


Actually I disagree. The issue is not Speed cameras as such, but the bad driving (speeding/causing accidents etc) they use as an excuse to use Speed cameras. No speeding (which, while it may not cause accidents as such, does increase the severity of injuries caused by accidents) and no bad driving = no excuse for Speed Cameras.

I do agree that those crimes need to be sorted out. The problem is that come election time, the commissioner would be tempted to divert resources from those crimes to more glamourous ones that would get him or her more publicity. I am not saying they will do that, but I don't think we can take the chance they will.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Like I said, unreasoned fears of the unknown.
Do you really believe a commisioner would come in and get the police to ignore all crime apart from one or two issues that concern the public???
Do you really think that is going to happen?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

If they are anything like the politicians we have in power, yes.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

You seriously expect to be in a position where the police would ignore something like a bank robbery or a hostage situation because the commisioner has asked (not ordered, remember he can't force the police to do anything, they have to just have regard for his policies) them to only deal with muggings and teenagers on corners?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

I don't think it will work that way.

If, say, around election time there happened to be a child murderer on the loose and he was caught. The story was well reported in the papers and on the TV.

I would be very happy, however If I also lived on a street where every house had been broken into I wouldn't be happy enough to vote for this commssioner.

If before every election the PA, where forced to publish their stats, a leaflet through every door so everybody gets to see them.

You will not be able to hide figures like 1 child murderer caught, but 15% rise in burglery. 1 serial killer caught, but 20% rise in violent crime.

You have to give the public some credit, we're not all muppets that can easily be romanced by a bit of good publicity.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Fear of crime is much bigger than the reality of crime; this is one of the problems with this proposal. It's an emotive issue which will be exploited by our feeble excuses for politicians. You only have to look at the banal dialogue currently being had through the media in the pre-election frenzy to see that. Crime statistics are already freely available to the public; it's just most people prefer to rely on the warped view they get through the media (hence the fear of crime) rather than seek out a more informed picture. I don't, however, dispute that police forces and authorities could do more to inform the public. But how quickly would the Press jump on them for the cost involved in doing that (say by leafleting all properties)?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Maybe the problem is I am cynical, but I think given a large enough "carrot", the public will let the commissioner get away with a hell of a lot. Look at our government. They have systematically sold our economy to outside countries, as well as wasting billions of pounds on various projects, letting more immigrants in (and various other things) but because they promised tax cuts, we voted them in (well, I didn't, but a lot of people did). Not only did we vote them in initially, but while they were doing that, we voted them in for a second term.

I heard it said somewhere that while people individually are intelligent, witty etc., people as a group can be extremely stupid and prone to panic.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

As the original poster I believe I have a right to steer this thread where I want it to go. :rolleyes:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Well I thought about that in some detail and told myself an extremely pithy joke before going down the pub with some mates, talking about Jody Marsh for a while then we all spoiled our Calvin Klein keks when we missed last orders :)








Is it time to close this thread?!

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

No i don't think so.I would suggest to those who want to discuss speed cameras

to go here

Or to just type speed cameras into the forum search box.They will find a fair few threads about the subject. :tu:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

And you can *get* that, as I keep saying, by stopping politicians from using the Police as a political football!!!

The first thing a politician wants to do is to meddle with something to "show they're doing something". Unfortunately they don't realise that sometimes the best form of management is "hands off" and let the people *doing* the job actually *do* their job.

Yes, of course, but resources have to be used efficiently.

I'm sure you would, but that is letting fear over-ride logic.

It makes as much sense as people stopping using trains and going back to cars because of disasters like Hatfield, when, in fact, the number of deaths on the roads each year are the equivalent of a Hatfield *every two days*!

Yet road accidents don't get media coverage unless they're really spectacular, but rail accidents are big news.

Using all those resources to chase the Ripper may have made people *think* they were safer, but not at the expense of any/ all other crime being given a lower priority as a result.

That is evident. People's *perceptions* of what the risks of crime are and what the *actual* risks may be are two entirely different things.

Until you can step back and look at the situation *objectively* you are not going to understand what I am talking about.

And this is a *perfect* example of what I am talking about.

Valuable and scarce resources are being expended to deal with a problem which is actually *incredibly* rare in comparison to burglaries, violence and other such crimes, because of the high profile that case got.

The *fact* of the matter is that a child is still much more likely to be abused or harmed or even killed by a close family member rather than a stranger or someone working as a caretaker, yet this fact is swamped by a mass of unreasoning emotion.

You consider it a "small price", but consider the many people who may have been mugged or had their houses broken into because resources that could have been used to deal with the criminals who commit those common offences were being dedicated to something that that is extremely rare.

Try telling someone "sorry your house was broken into or you were mugged, but that's a small price to pay to stop another Holly and Jessica, isn't it?" and see what sort of response you get.

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort, but, once again, you make my point for me perfectly, because *THAT* is exactly the sort of rhetoric that candidates for an elected position like we're discussing would use to "prove" that *they* are the best person for the job!!

If you were a member of their families I would not expect you to be able to look at the situation in a logical and non-emotional manner.

However I would hope that other people *would* be able to step back and see the fallacies present in your arguments.

And once more you miss the point. The crimes you list there are *not* the ones that stick in the public consciousness because they do *not* get the mass media coverage.

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.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

And you could get it through this new proposal too.

Or sometimes the best thing to do is change it.


Agreed, whose to say they wont be under this proposal?





It makes as much sense as people stopping using trains and going back to cars because of disasters like Hatfield, when, in fact, the number of deaths on the roads each year are the equivalent of a Hatfield *every two days*

Yet road accidents don't get media coverage unless they're really spectacular, but rail accidents are big news.

Using all those resources to chase the Ripper may have made people *think* they were safer, but not at the expense of any/ all other crime being given a lower priority as a result. [/quote]

This analogy does not wash. If there is a serial killer on the loose the resources to catch him would be the same if it was plastered over the media or not. (In fact in such cases the media is essential in helping to catch him)

Also the resources for different types of crime vary. A loose serial killer will not affect the booby on the beat apart from him keeping an eye out for an ID on a description. Small teams of CID etc would be the main resource.

Its a weak argument

I know exactly what your talking about.

No its not, in your post you say the measures undertaken after the Soham murders are over the top, clogging up the system.

But it was evident from the inquest afterwards that the system was flawed. But you stand point would be not to change anything becuase the risk is still small.

Sorry, not acceptable and no government could take that stand point becuase if they wilingly did nothing and a repeat (however statistically small) happened then they will have failed to fufill one of their main duties and that is to protect the people.

But it's a problem that needed fixing

Yes but no matter how *factual* that point is completely irrelevant.

You cannot do anything about the family or friend abusing the child until it comes out.

Here the authorities were presented with a system failure that could put children at risk and they are therefore duty bound to fix it. Not emotion - duty of care

Whose playing the emotion card now....

I do consider those people and any future commisioner would be wise to as well.

Well I'll take you up on that becuase I think any right minded decent human being would consider the life of two children worth more than a few possessions

Good, I want the best person for the job.

I think you should read through your again.

No I don't miss the point.

I know that these crimes are not the media savvy ones. But don't make the mistake of thinking joe public is as thick as you think he is.

These crimes are the ones where any future PA can make the best political ground and are the ones they should concentrate on.

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.[/QUOTE]

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

and sometimes the best thing is to leave well alone, The Police force in my view isnt broke, its just bogged down with paper work and red tape.
If it was as easy for the coppers to go out an nick somoen for acting suspicious then maybe crime rates would fall, however liberals have been fighting, (and quite rightly in some cases) to extend rights to people to be able to walk the streets at whatever time and not be hassled by the police.

I know from experience that it happens, the amount of times I've been arrested under suspicion of something, to find out that the guy they were looking for is skinny with long red hair ( I check the mirror 19st shaved head that was dark brown) I guess its an easy mistake to make at night.
And its embarrassing to be arrested in front of people, especially when your innocent. I put up with questioning, but arresting is going too far in some cases.

As with all professions theres good cops and bad cops, the bad ones make the headlines, the good ones dont because it isnt sensational.
Making the head of police or whatever a political pawn is a really bad mistake in my oppinion, we choose him the gov controls him, we would have very little input, we couldnt get him to put things right, we couldnt get him to abolish paperwork and get more cops back on the beat.

In Thornaby we have a lot of community wardens, they do a decent job, but the crimes still there, its a step in the right direction, but they need more powers to deter the yobs etc.

Social crime I htink needs to be given a priority, the police should have guidlines at how long it should take them to answer a call, depending upon emergencies etc .

I'm blabbering, now and I wanted to green rep Graham for his last post but it wouldnt let me :(

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

OK

So we should leave it well alone - all bogged down with paperwork and red tape.

But if these are your concerns then being able to vote for a commissioner who promises to address these concerns will be a good thing - wont it?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

They may not ignore it, but we could end up with a situation where officers investigating a crime that's already happened are pulled off it prematurely.


BTW, if the Police force have to "just have regard for his policies", doesn't that mean they do not have to implement them? Surely if they don't have to implement the policies, that means the commissioner would just be an extra layer of beurocracy, that wouldn't achieve much apart from costing the Police time, and the taxpayer millions of pounds (nationally) a year?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Done :tu:

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Not if he or she cannot force the police to implement their policies.

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

Why? I'm concerned about speeding drivers, your concerned about speed cameras. Who's concern is the commissioner going to address?

Re: I think this is a stupid Idea
 

A good one would be able to find a balance between the two.

By targeting speeding drivers in built up areas where children play, yet removing cameras from nice straight dual carriegeways.
__________________

A good one would be able to influence police policy.