[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

So, the commissioner would have a purely consultative role, with no actual power.. Not sure how having someone with no actual power in this position actually makes the police more accountable.

Another thing. If our current system is causing problems now, why was it not causing problems when the tories were in power? It was largely the same system.

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.

My point is that if crime is a problem in an area, then people may well see that as a failiure on behalf of their local councillors, and be less likely to elect them in future.

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.

Yet.

I think there are problems within the police, but the whole system needs attention, not just one part (from the home secretary downwards).

Also, the tories have stated they will reduce paperwork.

They have stated that before. Mainly when they effectively privatised the NHS. Having worked in the privatised NHS, I would dread to see how much paperwork they had before if the amount I had to deal with was reduced. The paperwork in the system actually increased. Apparently a similar thing happened with the Railways.. Still, this isn't a discussion on Privatisation.

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

Where?

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.

This actually resulted in England having some ofthe longest working hours in Europe..

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?

True, I do agree that it is slightly confusing that the Police run some road safety measures (cameras and other enforcement system) while local councils run others (prevention methods). Maybe local councils should run all..

Still, there is one way around speed cameras. Don't speed..