[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

Ok, you've not declared victory. But you've said Graham has "failed to convincingly argue against" your points and therefore there's "no need to come back at any". That's rather dismissive and hardly in the spirit of debate. Whatever you think about Graham's posts they have been considered - highly considered! - and have made a significant contribution to the thread (whether you or I agree with them or not) and are worthy of more than a brush off. If you're bored with the thread that's a different thing
.

I didn't know I would be set upon by on Grahams minders.

I like arguing with Graham, however I felt if I carried on I would be flogging a dead horse. But if it makes you feel any better.

Originally Posted by Graham

Fine. Where are you going to get the money? More taxes? Or take it from some other area that also wants the cash.

Where is your evidence that this will incur extra cost? It may focus the police to use their resources more wisely and reduce costs, allowing for extra resources to put into areas where it is needed.

You can hire private security or private investigators.

Yes, you can usually find me around town flanked by my personal security guards.

No, they're accountable to our *already* elected representatives.

And our *already* elected representatives have umpteen other things to concern themselves with.

This proposal will bring a bit focus.

I never said they wouldn't. I said people wouldn't *be* safer which you have now acknowledged.

Statistically

You brought up the matter of people "feeling safer". You then imply that I'm suggesting that the actual allocation of resources would be different depending on public interest/ media coverage. I said nothing of the sort.

Yes you did, from Post 71

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

Now, that's what that says to me. Wasting resources on a high profile case because it would look good to the public, implying that if that case wasn't so high profile the same amount of resources wouldn't be used.



Why? Because there was an *imminent* danger of another murder or murders taking place or because (to quote from further down this thread):

However it is the *mechanism* of change which is important and, once again, I point out that knee-jerk reactions or attempts to pander to public feelings are *not* the way to go.

I agree to a point.

But in some issues "pandering to public feeling" and "addressing the publics concerns" are not the same thing.

As I said above, was there an *imminent* danger of another murder? Well, no, actually there wasn't.

Well, no, actually you don't know that. However, extremely, unlikely there was a risk.

It may also have been the case that the mess that was cobbled together to provide for checks could actually have left chilren *more* at risk!

It may also be the case that the mess that was cobbled together saved a child from harm

We are talking about the sensible allocation and usage of resources.

No we're talking about the introduction of a Police commissioner, the cost of which will probably be less than the existing PAs

You have brought in the Social Services angle to try and back up your weak stance

And the Police and Social Services do *not* act in isolation from each other.

If Social Services could get the resources and funding to do their jobs better, the Police may well have *less* work to do dealing with delinquent teenagers, vandalism etc etc.

Yes all very nice, what has it got to do with the Police Commissioner?

Entirely relevant! The point is to deal with the problem *before* the Police have to expend their resources on it!!

And the introduction of a Police commissioner will prevent this how?

Trying to consider problems in isolation instead of seeing them as part of an entire system also does not help.

Yes, so the introduction of a Police Commissioner will bring the downfall of the "entire system"

No, of course I cannot *know* this would be the case, nor can I demonstrate the truth of the proposition, however there *is* a logical connection that can be seen by anyone who cares to think about it.

A very tenuous connection, but I wouldn't exactly call it logical.

Ok, you *might* get someone who does a very good job, but I think that is less likely than getting a pseudo-politician who is more interested in pandering to public opinion to make themselves look better than actually concentrating on what the public needs (which is *not* the same as what they want!)

Well we'd have to wait and see.

I cannot help what you think, however I have yet to see any evidence of this.

Look harder

Then please excuse me if I am somewhat more cynical than you, especially where The Public's short term memory is concerned.

Cynical is exactly what it is, is what your objection is based around. I think Xaccers summed it up well

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Stick with the tried and tested "I don't like it, I can't give any evidence to back up why it would be a bad thing, and I don't see why I should suggest something better" argument.

It looked more like an attempt to score a cheap point.

Takes one to know one.