Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
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.
|
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?)