Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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).
|
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? |
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.