Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
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.