[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by scastle

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?

If there is no operational justification for it, the cheif constable would not have to impliment it. For example, if the commisioner said he wanted all paedophiles to be followed, the cheif constable would be within his rights to not include that in his annual operations plan.
However, if the commisioner said that the police should tackle the very real problem of kids on a certain estate causing criminal damage, then it would be the responsibility of the chief constable to impliment that within his operational plan. This is what happens now.

Originally Posted by scastle

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).

Councillors represent their political party and very few people realise what the PA does (as demonstrated by some participants in this thread), let alone that it actually exists!
The public also has no say in the selection of which councillors join the PA.
That is not accountability.
As for costs, rather than paying for 17 people in a PA, you've got just the one.
Unless the goverment makes tackling crime harder for the police, nothing the commisioner can do will increase the paperwork or interfere with the police's ability to tackle crime.
It is the home office that decides proceedure, like what forms need to be filled out in triplicate, not the commisioner.
Also, the tories have stated they will reduce paperwork.

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

They've looked at other countries and seen the positive effect having an accountable commisioner has had.

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

Oh I don't know, they promised to take on the trade unions and stop the strikes that were crippling the country, seem to recall that happened.
The also promised to reduce crime and under Howard that actually happened.

Originally Posted by dellwear

Can I just check something? From what I've read in the local paper the funds raised from speeding fines is ring fenced to go back into road safety work, if this is the case then what does this have to do with the police force making money? Chim can you confirm this either way if you're about?

True, money gained by the police through speed cameras has to be used in road safety, however this includes conferences with banquets at 5 star hotels discussing road safety.
Now unless the police are able to use the money to install speed bumps or redesign roads, the only thing they can do for road safety is install more cameras, or have more patrol cars (hmm why haven't they done that?)
Of course, all these cameras aren't just raking in money for the police, they're raking in huge amounts of tax for the treasury, could this be one of the reasons why the goverment are so pro cameras when more effective safety devices are available but don't bring in any money?