Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xaccers
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?
|
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.