Graham

So, you have two options:

1) Spend a lot of money introducing an expensive and time consuming process that will attempt to elect someone who will represent the public's views, but will probably be influenced massively by political rhetoric and media spin

2) Stop political meddling in policing which will cost nothing and allow resources to be devoted to what they *should* be concentrated on ie dealing with crime!

I know which I'd go for...!

I give you the examples of the NHS and education as two other prime candidates for the argument that the best option is to keep political hands off.

Politicians are continually fiddling and meddling with these "because that's what the public want", when what all those who are actually in the front lines really want is to be left to get on with the job and stop having to chop and change every couple of years because the government wants to look good and the opposition wants to get elected.

Again, you are spending money and using resources to try to fix a problem that could very probably be fixed by just *leaving* well alone.

But that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about *your* claim that young women would feel "safer" because of the resources being put into that case.

However the fact of the matter is that such a perception is false.

No, that's a Straw Man.

Pardon me if I doubt that, especially since, from the example above, it seems you're not even sure what *you* are talking about.

And, once again, you resort to political style rhetoric and false assumptions, demonstrating that you do not understand what I am talking about.

I did not, nor would I say "change nothing because the risk is so small".

Yes, checks should be made, yes, sex offenders should not get jobs working or near children, however the sort of panicky knee-jerk "we must be seen to be doing something" political reaction that followed Soham was *not* an efficient nor sensible use of resources and caused all sorts of problems because it was ill thought out.

Again, political rhetoric. Neither a single high-profile case nor emotive arguments should *not* determine policy.

Fine, I agree, but fix it in a *sensible* way, not with a knee-jerk that causes all sorts of other difficulties.

Rubbish! Many more children are abused by family and friends than by strangers and many more could be protected from abuse and harm by targetting resources into Social Services to *stop* it from happening in the first place.

And what about the "duty of care" to all those children being abused "in private"? It seems to be a case of "out of sight, out of mind"...

There is nothing "emotional" about it. It is a simple fact of logic. And that commissioner would most probably be more interested in exploiting emotion than facts, just like many other politicians.

Obviously it's their public duty to be burgled or mugged to help ensure that no children are murdered... (Note: this is *irony*)

What was that line from Douglas Adams (or possibly Arthur C Clarke)? Those who seek public office and are capable of getting themselves elected to it are, ipso facto, entirely *unsuited* to the position...?!

The point is you would *NOT* get the "best person for the job", you'd get whoever could *convince* the public that they were best for the job which is an *entirely* different matter!

Read through my *what* again? My post? My arguments?

If there are fallacies in my arguments, please, point them out, but don't just use vague implication to suggest they are there without actually backing it up with proof.

Individually I'm sure, just like politicians Joe and Josephine Public are very nice people who I'd quite like if I met socially.

However "The Public" as a whole has a tendency to "mob mentality" and that benefits nobody.

As I said previously:

"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."
__________________



Pierre, this sort of thing is really not doing your arguments any credit.

In case you really don't understand, what timewarrior and I mean by "leaving well alone" is *getting rid of* large amounts of the paperwork and red tape that successive Governments have dumped on the Police so they can *get on* with the job of dealing with criminals instead of Government "targets".