[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

<snip>
Yee gods and little fishes! How difficult is it to understand?????
The commisioner will have the power to get the cheif constable to target crime as long as it is operationally feasable.
I have already given examples, but here's another (based loosly on actual events), hopefully you'll understand:

Littlebill Town has lots of instances of anti social behaviour. The police have been turning a blind eye to it and not actually aresting offenders, the home secretary isn't too bothered about this either.
The commisioner tells the cheif constable that the police must start tackling the issues and arresting people issueing ASBOs.
The chief constable can't argue with this as it's operationally feasable, and the police start arresting people and charging them with asbo's.
With offenders realising that the police are no longer turning a blind eye, even if they haven't been issued with an asbo, they start behaving.

Now, is that too difficult a process to understand?

No, it isn't. No need to patronise me..

I do happen to think that if the police are ignoring many instances of anti social behaviour, and not actively enforcing ASBOs, then assuming there is no reason for it (such as lack of resources or too many officers tied up with paperwork), perhaps the Chief Constable is not doing their job?

No, you have made the point that the Chief Constable would not necessarily have to follow the guidelines set down by the Commissioner. This is what I based my comment about it being a consultative position on, as if the Chief constable ignores the "advice" given, then it will have no effect.

Well, back then you had an more effective police force/home secretary combination, so the police weren't turning such a blind eye to issues.

And they shouldn't be now, which is why I suggested that the whole system be reviewed..

Also "choice" has become a political facter thanks to labour spin (you know, you have choice as to which hospital you can be taken to for your hip op if your local one isn't good enough or can't fit you in. Of course most people don't want that, they want their local hospital to be up to the job in the first place! Or choice with schools as to which school you can send your kids to if your local one is crap. Again, most parents want their local school to be great and not have to lug the kids 10 miles down the road to another school. Labour: "We didn't improve your facilities, but we did give you the choice to go to someone else's facilities" )

Choice is good. But, as you say, our current government have used it as a substitute for quality.

Making us one of the most attractive nations in europe for businesses to come to.
I like that I can do overtime if I want, I like that I can earn the extra cash rather than have it denied me.
Sure I shouldn't be forced into it, which we're not, but why should I be denied the choice to do more than 48 hours?
And just look at how often France gets brought to its knees with strikes.
Winter of discontent anyone? No thanks!

Actually, in some jobs, people are forced into it.. Doctors for instance. Admittedly, the hours for Junior Doctors have been reduced, but IIRC, John Major's government fought that tooth and nail, and only reduced them when the EU intervened.