[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

And you could get it through this new proposal too.

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.

Or sometimes the best thing to do is change it.

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

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

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. [/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

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.

I know exactly what your talking about.

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

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.

But it's a problem that needed fixing

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.

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

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.

Whose playing the emotion card now....

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

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.

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

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!!

Good, I want 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.

I think you should read through your again.

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.

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]