Cable Forum - View Single Post

Stuart · 20-02-2005, 00:34

This thread is an example of why I think one commissioner would be a bad idea. As I have stated countless times before, the kinds of people who seek to be elected into this kind of position would often say or do anything to keep themselves in that position. Which would mean that they would say they are going to sort out any problem that is currently being highlighted by the press at the time. For evidence of this, look at the fact that the political parties have started to take notice of people's concerns on immigration recently. I am pretty sure Labour have actually said in the past that there isn't a problem and we have tight enough immigration controls, now they are saying they will tighten them if they get into power.

Now, as I understand it, the current Police Authority system is designed to reduce the chances of the Authority getting fixated on one issue, and maybe not ignoring other issues, but certainly not devoting enough time or resources to them.

Now, Xaccers pointed out (in reply to me) that the Police Force would not have to follow the commissioner's guidelines. Now, dellwear has just asked the question I was going to. If the commissioner cannot force the police to do what he or she says, what is the point of the commissioner?

Sorry, but while I accept that the police need to be accountable to the public (to a certain extent), I do not believe a commissioner is the answer. As I understand it, the Police Authorities are already partially elected, so they are already accountable to the public. I believe that at best, a commissioner would be someone who has no actual power to do anything, but costs a lot of money. At worst, they would have policies that would interfere with the Police's ability to do their job (such as increasing paperwork).

I will admit, if it can be proved that having a commissioner will reduce crime, or at least increase the chances of criminals being captured and convicted (but obviously after the police proving they committed the crime), I am all for the idea. I am concerned that it seems that the Torys have come up with this idea and are promising to implement it without really investigating whether it will work.

Still, Micheal Howard has promised he will do this if put into power. Even assuming they do get into power, in my experience, the Tories don't have a good record for doing what they promise.

20-02-2005, 00:34	#126
Stuart - Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Somewhere Services: Virgin for TV and Internet, BT for phone Posts: 26,546	Re: I think this is a stupid Idea This thread is an example of why I think one commissioner would be a bad idea. As I have stated countless times before, the kinds of people who seek to be elected into this kind of position would often say or do anything to keep themselves in that position. Which would mean that they would say they are going to sort out any problem that is currently being highlighted by the press at the time. For evidence of this, look at the fact that the political parties have started to take notice of people's concerns on immigration recently. I am pretty sure Labour have actually said in the past that there isn't a problem and we have tight enough immigration controls, now they are saying they will tighten them if they get into power. Now, as I understand it, the current Police Authority system is designed to reduce the chances of the Authority getting fixated on one issue, and maybe not ignoring other issues, but certainly not devoting enough time or resources to them. Now, Xaccers pointed out (in reply to me) that the Police Force would not have to follow the commissioner's guidelines. Now, dellwear has just asked the question I was going to. If the commissioner cannot force the police to do what he or she says, what is the point of the commissioner? Sorry, but while I accept that the police need to be accountable to the public (to a certain extent), I do not believe a commissioner is the answer. As I understand it, the Police Authorities are already partially elected, so they are already accountable to the public. I believe that at best, a commissioner would be someone who has no actual power to do anything, but costs a lot of money. At worst, they would have policies that would interfere with the Police's ability to do their job (such as increasing paperwork). I will admit, if it can be proved that having a commissioner will reduce crime, or at least increase the chances of criminals being captured and convicted (but obviously after the police proving they committed the crime), I am all for the idea. I am concerned that it seems that the Torys have come up with this idea and are promising to implement it without really investigating whether it will work. Still, Micheal Howard has promised he will do this if put into power. Even assuming they do get into power, in my experience, the Tories don't have a good record for doing what they promise.