I think this is a stupid Idea

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

This election is already annoying. Have you see the tory posters? they are some of the most simplstic and stupid comments ever. Comments like 'Really, how hard is it to keep a hospital clean?" and "If you put more police on the street they will catch more criminals. its not rocket science is it?" make both issue seems black and white. MRSA is a difficult bug to kill as it is immune to a lot of cleaners and most criminals dont commit crimes near a police man.

There's a hospital in Essex which is MRSA free because the managment concentrated on getting staff to wash their hands and the cleaners do proper jobs.
They've saved money because of it through patients actually recovering faster through the reduction in all post surgury infections, not just MRSA.

If there were more police on the streets rather than stuck behind mobile speed cameras or in the police station spending the majority of their time filling out forms, then they'd be more likely to be close by when a crime takes place rather than taking an hour to respond to a 999 call because a convicted murderer is pulling down your fence and threatening your life (speaking from personal experience here)

So I have no problem with those posters, after all, what they say is true, just wish labour could understand that rather than spending its time coming up with putting the faces of two Jews on pigs (unrepentantly too!)... some attempt to get the BNP vote perhaps?
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

I didn't say they would have say in sentencing but they could, as you yourself pointed out, influence Police priorities based on "what the people want" (translation: what's most likely to get them re-elected).

What would you prefer?
A police force that spends a large chunk of its time targeting motorists in non-accident black spots such as a straight bit of motorway, while doing bugger all about the gangs of kids going down the street smashing windows, scratching cars (even torching them)

Or

A police force which has been directed to target dangerous drivers and also tackle the trouble making kids?


Now if the commissioner in elected and doesn't do as his manefesto stated, then at least he can be vote out, can the same be done with current police authorities?

Last time I looked speeding was a crime. It amazes me that people get so hung up about speed cameras. If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime. Better still stop whizzing around my neighbourhood threatening the lives of my children you selfish, impatient dolts!

Speed cameras are precisely the sort of populist cause chase voting politicians like to latch on to.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What would you prefer?
A police force that spends a large chunk of its time targeting motorists in non-accident black spots such as a straight bit of motorway, while doing bugger all about the gangs of kids going down the street smashing windows, scratching cars (even torching them)

Or

A police force which has been directed to target dangerous drivers and also tackle the trouble making kids?

Now if the commissioner in elected and doesn't do as his manefesto stated, then at least he can be vote out, can the same be done with current police authorities?

The point is that the current situation is the result of the Government playing around with stupid targets and initiatives *instead* of letting the Police get on with their jobs.

The business with speed cameras set in locations which aren't dangerous is, I agree entirely, ridiculous and needs to be sorted out, but that's only one minor detail that doesn't take up much time, unlike the sheer amount of paperwork that officers are now faced with every time they stop someone etc.

Having some elected official come in will only result in them trying to get the Police to pander to what looks good to the public, rather than what actually does most to reduce crime and, come the election, anyone who wants the job will be trotting out the same old rhetoric we already see from the political parties trying to claim that *they* are the party (person) of Law and Order and that the other one has failed because of X, Y or Z.

This helps nobody.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Speed cameras are just one issue though. I don't disagree that traffic crime needs a level of enforcement. The human and monetary cost of road accidents is just as real as many other law and order issues. But there needs to be a balance and unfortunately the police are loosing the battle over cameras with public opinion new seeing them as revenue generating, not law enforcement.

But we digress.

It is also worth noting that the majority of paperwork that keeps officers tied to desks rather than out on the streets, is due to our legal systems and rights of the accused. Untill the judicicial system is altered, whatever might be said about paperwork cutting is doomed to failure.

Essentially defence lawyers are now looking first, not at what the strength of the evidence is, but whether all the techinicalities of proceedures have been followed. That is one whole set of paperwork needed to demonstrate compliance. Then there is the hunt for any documentation that might discredit the evidence. Another tier of paperwork. So it goes on and on. And it's not just the police that suffer, it happens to day in all walks of life due to our ever increasing compensation and human rights cultures.

But we digress.

A police commissioner, I'm sure will not work. Too much power in the hands of a single individual with no-one to excercise restraint is not a good idea. A more accountable police authority may not solve the ills of excessive paperwork, and the like but might have their ear closer to the people, and so influence the policing priorities closer to the wishes of the people.

It should be remembered that a fundamental principle of policing in this country is one of "policing by consent" of the public. Surely elected authorities is a logical extension and implementation of that consent.

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Speed cameras are just one issue though. I don't disagree that traffic crime needs a level of enforcement. The human and monetary cost of road accidents is just as real as many other law and order issues. But there needs to be a balance and unfortunately the police are loosing the battle over cameras with public opinion new seeing them as revenue generating, not law enforcement.

But we digress.

It is also worth noting that the majority of paperwork that keeps officers tied to desks rather than out on the streets, is due to our legal systems and rights of the accused. Untill the judicicial system is altered, whatever might be said about paperwork cutting is doomed to failure.

Essentially defence lawyers are now looking first, not at what the strength of the evidence is, but whether all the techinicalities of proceedures have been followed. That is one whole set of paperwork needed to demonstrate compliance. Then there is the hunt for any documentation that might discredit the evidence. Another tier of paperwork. So it goes on and on. And it's not just the police that suffer, it happens to day in all walks of life due to our ever increasing compensation and human rights cultures.

But we digress.

A police commissioner, I'm sure will not work. Too much power in the hands of a single individual with no-one to excercise restraint is not a good idea. A more accountable police authority may not solve the ills of excessive paperwork, and the like but might have their ear closer to the people, and so influence the policing priorities closer to the wishes of the people.

It should be remembered that a fundamental principle of policing in this country is one of "policing by consent" of the public. Surely elected authorities is a logical extension and implementation of that consent.

Provided all those elected are truly representitive of the people they are to represent.Doesn't really work in the House of Commons or Lords.If it is done on the samo,samo PARTY lines it will be disasterous.

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

It is also worth noting that the majority of paperwork that keeps officers tied to desks rather than out on the streets, is due to our legal systems and rights of the accused. Untill the judicicial system is altered, whatever might be said about paperwork cutting is doomed to failure.

Essentially defence lawyers are now looking first, not at what the strength of the evidence is, but whether all the techinicalities of proceedures have been followed.

I have to disagree. The paperwork seems mostly about the government imposing their targets and making sure they're not discriminating.

I have no objection to records being kept to ensure that the innocent are not prosecuted or convicted and that procedures are observed properly (ask the victims of miscarriages of justice where confessions have been faked or evidence has been corrupted), to weaken that system is to weaken the entire priciples of Justice.

[MovedGoalPosts]

Originally Posted by Graham

I have to disagree. The paperwork seems mostly about the government imposing their targets and making sure they're not discriminating.

I have no objection to records being kept to ensure that the innocent are not prosecuted or convicted and that procedures are observed properly (ask the victims of miscarriages of justice where confessions have been faked or evidence has been corrupted), to weaken that system is to weaken the entire priciples of Justice.

Even the most simple of policing procedures today is governed by the rules necessary for collection of evidence to either secure a conviction at court, and/or alternatively to disprove a complaint against the police. The paperwork that generates is absolutely frightening, even for the most simple of cases.

Paperwork is one of the reasons why the simplest offences are now being dealt with by fixed penalty. It deals with offenders promptly and ensures there is some punishment, without tying officers up. The major saving to police is the much reduced paperwork that could easily eat 4 hours (and that is not an exaggeration), for a simple bout of excessive swearing. That 4 hours is entirely due to the various forms needed to enable the CPS to put the case to court, and offset the scrutiny of the Defence. Of course some paperwork is still needed to document the offence if the FPN is not paid up, but at least the majority can now be settled. For a more complex case, inevitably the time involved in paperwork rises signigficantly.

Many additional paperwork tiers were brought in simply due to Human Rights Legislation, in other words more means of somebody perceiving discrimination. Unless the police are to be made exempt from such legislation I cannot see how the paperwork can be avoided, and I'm sure exemption would be an admittance that such legislation had failed.

It is clearly not in anyone's interest that there be miscariages of justice. Until someone can come up with a better system of ensuring compliance, most police paperwork will unavoidable. That is the world we now live in that we cannot simply accept the word of someone that what they said they did, was done.

But to return to the original point of this thread, if the idea of commissioners is flawed (and I think there is concensus on that), and disagreement on the need for elected Police Authorities, are we saying that there are sufficient controls in place that make the police accountable to their communities, dealing with the real issues of concern to the community, rather than just playing lip service? If we believe that our local police do not do what we need them to do, how do we improve that accountability?

Oh and by the way before anyone gets the impression that I might be anti police, entirely the opposite is true. I did serve as a Special Constable for a number of years.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

Last time I looked speeding was a crime. It amazes me that people get so hung up about speed cameras. If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime. Better still stop whizzing around my neighbourhood threatening the lives of my children you selfish, impatient dolts!

Speed cameras are precisely the sort of populist cause chase voting politicians like to latch on to.

What are your children doing playing on the motorway I mentioned?!?!?!

Originally Posted by Graham

Having some elected official come in will only result in them trying to get the Police to pander to what looks good to the public, rather than what actually does most to reduce crime and, come the election, anyone who wants the job will be trotting out the same old rhetoric we already see from the political parties trying to claim that *they* are the party (person) of Law and Order and that the other one has failed because of X, Y or Z.

So instead of the police tackling what the community actually wants them to tackle, you'd prefer they continue ignoring troublesome areas simply because its too much hassle for them?

Of course with the commissioner being held accountable to the people, and accesabble to the media, he'll be in an idea position to explain the actions of the police, so if there is a reason why they can't tackle something the public want, he can explain it.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If there were more police on the streets rather than stuck behind mobile speed cameras or in the police station spending the majority of their time filling out forms, then they'd be more likely to be close by when a crime takes place rather than taking an hour to respond to a 999 call because a convicted murderer is pulling down your fence and threatening your life (speaking from personal experience here)

So I have no problem with those posters, after all, what they say is true, just wish labour could understand that rather than spending its time coming up with putting the faces of two Jews on pigs (unrepentantly too!)... some attempt to get the BNP vote perhaps? ?

I think that the object of the poster was to put the tory leaders on the pigs rather than jews. There doesnt seem to be any attempt to attack them for being jews, after all they wouldnt do something as it would obviously backfire.

Moving on...you had a convicted murder pulling down your fence

[Mal]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

What are your children doing playing on the motorway I mentioned?!?!?!

So there's absolutely no accidents on the any motorway then? No pileups caused by drivers not being able to slow in time to avoid a crash?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

I think that the object of the poster was to put the tory leaders on the pigs rather than jews. There doesnt seem to be any attempt to attack them for being jews, after all they wouldnt do something as it would obviously backfire.

Moving on...you had a convicted murder pulling down your fence

Yes I did. When he wa 15 he didn't like the look of someone so beat them to death.
The police took about an hour to arrive.
Shortly after that incident a new beat bobby was called in (thanks to the actions of one of the attending officers and some of my family members) and sorted the area out but by then I'd had 27 outstanding and uninvestigated cases (you're supposed to get gold status after 3!) and I just wanted to get out of the area.

Now if there had been a well known and accessable commissioner, I could have written to him about the issues and got something done sooner.
__________________

Originally Posted by Mal

So there's absolutely no accidents on the any motorway then? No pileups caused by drivers not being able to slow in time to avoid a crash?

I know it's a different subject to a police comissioner, but in that example, was the accident caused by excessive speed or lack of concentration and driving too close?

If you believe it was due to excessive speed, then extending that logic there should be no similar accidents with vehicles driving under the speed limit.
However we know speed is something like 8th in the top ten factors causing accidents, with being too close, lack of concentration, and driving while tired above it.
Speed cameras won't catch anyone driving erraticaly or dangerously, or while tired, or tailgaiting.
Police in a patrol car can.
Now if a commissioner said that part of his manifesto was to get more police onto the motorways to tackle dangerous driving, I'd vote for him (as long as his other policies were sensible too of course)

As for the claim (made by others) that people who are against speed cameras are against ones in towns, that's bovine excriment.
I don't know anyone who objects to speed cameras that are correctly placed, such as by schools (which in my opinion should have a speed limit of 20mph) and high accident areas like a straight bit of road with a crossing at the end where some lunatic drivers may speed along far too dangerously and risk hitting someone on the crossing.
I'm also pro red light jumping cameras as these can capture dangerous drivers.

I agree with having accessible police commissioners however I still think the idea of a body being elected every 5 years on PARTY lines is a crazy one.We need to be able to have an apolitical solution.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

I agree with having accessible police commissioners however I still think the idea of a body being elected every 5 years on PARTY lines is a crazy one.We need to be able to have an apolitical solution.

Can you please supply the quote where Howard said it would be a party political comissioner?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Can you please supply the quote where Howard said it would be a party political comissioner?

OF course I can't because he didn't.I'm just pointing out how ALL elections end up.You honestly think that if there was a system set up to have an election that it won't split into any political party divide with Labour,Conservative,Liberal and Other NOT standong for election.In my experience even Independants are seldom independant.

Wouldnt this mean campaining? which costs money? So the candidates may have to be funded which creates a problem.

Also they always have thier eye on re-election so they will always try to do public pleasing actions and the public are not experts in policing