I think this is a stupid Idea

The fact that this thread got so easily sidetracked onto the Gatso debate shows precisely the problem; simple to understand single issue campaigns will dominate whilst the more complex concepts of, for example, policing by consent, will get left behind as politicians take the easy option and no doubt once again adopt, I'm harder than yow (thought I'd go all brummy on you for no apparent reason), position.

[Xaccers]

The reason why this thread got sidetracked onto speed cameras is because its a hot topic and an example of the police abusing their powers to make money and catch the easiest criminals rather than the ones that are causing the most detriment to the community.
And just because something is popular doesn't make it a bad thing.
Also, it's very difficult to get multiple issues across in a forum where people pick single issues out to tackle.

I have yet to see any reasoned argument against replacing the current un-accountable beurocratic PA's with an elected individual with the same powers.
So far the arguments against seem to be simply fear of the unknown or dislike becuase it's a tory idea.
At the moment you have the potential for 9 different voices going in 9 different directions as to what they believe the police should be doing.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which would have to be crimes that the public want tackled.
If a commissioner spent his time getting the police to tackle crime that the public didn't particularly care about, and ignoring the crimes that the public do want something done about, then do you think the public will keep him in?

Exactly my point. Depending on the areas in question, this could lead to the police ignoring crime in large sections of society just because the public don't know and don't care. Then when a young girl is murdered and the media get hold of it, the police will throw resources at it like there is no tommorrow.

For instance, the son of one of my mum's friends was murdered on his way home from the pub. Because it happened in an extremely rich area (even though it was 12 years ago now, the average house price was over £2milli on) , it was not reported in the local newspapers. The police caught the murderer, could not get a reliable conviction for Murder, so charged the criminal with ABH. In that case, it did not get reported in the local paper as the local populace didn't want the fuss of a crime on their doorstep. It is this sort of crime that I think a commissioner would not throw resources into. Our local police did, and the perpetrator is still (AFAIK) behind bars.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

If a commissioner spent his time getting the police to tackle crime that the public didn't particularly care about, and ignoring the crimes that the public do want something done about, then do you think the public will keep him in?

But the point is that you're just going to end up with another bloody politician!

The "crimes that the public care about" are often the ones that get the most media coverage and make people go "something must be done!", but they are very often not necessarily the ones that really *need* to be dealt with.

Consider the Soham Murders and the fallout from that whereby everyone who wants to get a job working with children or even working in areas *close* to children has to have a Criminal Record check which has resulted in the Criminal Records Bureau being swamped with a mass of applications that caused and is still causing backlogs.

Now I appreciate that the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman was a tragedy, but they were, in all honesty, an *isolated* incident, however due to the press coverage, any elected Comissioner who did *not* immediately respond to public concerns or said "this is not a sensible use of resources" would end up, as I pointed out in previous messages, being faced with claims that "they are failing to protect children".

The end result would be that resources would end up being used up in an inefficient way because it would *look good* to the public.

This is the problem with elected officials.

[carlingman]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Halloo! I wish to remind you this is NOT a thread about speed cameras? Can we stay on topic please?

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Siigghhhhhhhh!

Well i for one think this thread is bound to wander being as Speed Cameras are such a hot topic at the moment.

I have read this thread from the start and it has thrown up some very interesting points.

As for yours two comments above I will offer two things.

Firstly we have mods to decide whether it has strayed far too much off topic.



Secondly sorry teach but a big sigh says and adds nothing as you often tell us you know where the unsubscribe option is

Anyhows to drift back on to the topic i think the idea will work dependant on the area as down with us the Police are in the Councillors Pockets and vice versa.

So an independantly elected one could be a bonus.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

But the point is that you're just going to end up with another bloody politician!

Maybe, or maybe you may end up with a police force that responds to the publics fears and hopes.

The "crimes that the public care about" are often the ones that get the most media coverage and make people go "something must be done!", but they are very often not necessarily the ones that really *need* to be dealt with.

Well, firstly, I would say that ALL crime needs to be dealt with. People get killed and go missing every day, of course one or two certain crimes gain media attention. This is usually because there's an angle to the story.

The yorkshire ripper was a high profile case with a lot of resources thrown at it, and if you were a young woman in West Yorkshire at the time you'd bloody well be glad that there were.

Likewise the Soham murdrers, if you were a parent around Ely and Cambridge during that time you'd want the police to throw evrything they had at finding the killer, they did and caught him quickly.

I really don't see your point.

Consider the Soham Murders and the fallout from that whereby everyone who wants to get a job working with children or even working in areas *close* to children has to have a Criminal Record check which has resulted in the Criminal Records Bureau being swamped with a mass of applications that caused and is still causing backlogs.

Or we could let convicted child molestors and abusers to continue to work with children unchecked.!!!!

Which is why the two girls are no longer here!

I'm afraid a backlog of applications for jobs is a small price to pay.

Now I appreciate that the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman was a tragedy, but they were, in all honesty, an *isolated* incident,however due to the press coverage, any elected Comissioner who did *not* immediately respond to public concerns or said "this is not a sensible use of resources" would end up, as I pointed out in previous messages, being faced with claims that "they are failing to protect children".

So are you saying that when two young children both go missing that without press coverage the police would take their own sweet time about finding them????

As said before children go missing and/or killed all too often, and the police will put the same effort into finding them whether it's headline news or not. By the time these things reach the papers the police investigation is usually well underway.

The end result would be that resources would end up being used up in an inefficient way because it would *look good* to the public.

This is the problem with elected officials.

I know it's not the way you want it to come across, but if I was a member of Hollys or Jessicas family, I'd be really offended by your post.

I couldn't disagree with you more.


look around the country and what are the publics issues with crime.

Anti-social behaviour
Burglery
Speed cameras

These issues are what needs to be tackled 24/7 and on what the police will be judged. Not isolated terrible public crimes as you suggest.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by carlingman

Well i for one think this thread is bound to wander being as Speed Cameras are such a hot topic at the moment.

I have read this thread from the start and it has thrown up some very interesting points.

Judging by the media in General (and this forum in particular), it would seem the only thing an Elected commissioner would care about is speed cameras.. All those less glamourous crimes (you know the petty little ones like oohhh, murder, mugging etc) would get forgotten, unless there was an angle to them (like the victim being an old person, a young kid etc).

BTW, I believe that as thread starter, Incog does get some say as to what's on or off topic (even though she is not a Mod). She can certainly ask for the thread to be closed.
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

<snip>look around the country and what are the publics issues with crime.

Anti-social behaviour
Burglery
Speed cameras

These issues are what needs to be tackled 24/7 and on what the police will be judged. Not isolated terrible public crimes as you suggest.

Actually I disagree. The issue is not Speed cameras as such, but the bad driving (speeding/causing accidents etc) they use as an excuse to use Speed cameras. No speeding (which, while it may not cause accidents as such, does increase the severity of injuries caused by accidents) and no bad driving = no excuse for Speed Cameras.

I do agree that those crimes need to be sorted out. The problem is that come election time, the commissioner would be tempted to divert resources from those crimes to more glamourous ones that would get him or her more publicity. I am not saying they will do that, but I don't think we can take the chance they will.

[Xaccers]

Like I said, unreasoned fears of the unknown.
Do you really believe a commisioner would come in and get the police to ignore all crime apart from one or two issues that concern the public???
Do you really think that is going to happen?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Like I said, unreasoned fears of the unknown.
Do you really believe a commisioner would come in and get the police to ignore all crime apart from one or two issues that concern the public???
Do you really think that is going to happen?

If they are anything like the politicians we have in power, yes.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by scastle

If they are anything like the politicians we have in power, yes.

You seriously expect to be in a position where the police would ignore something like a bank robbery or a hostage situation because the commisioner has asked (not ordered, remember he can't force the police to do anything, they have to just have regard for his policies) them to only deal with muggings and teenagers on corners?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Scastle

I do agree that those crimes need to be sorted out. The problem is that come election time, the commissioner would be tempted to divert resources from those crimes to more glamourous ones that would get him or her more publicity. I am not saying they will do that, but I don't think we can take the chance they will.

I don't think it will work that way.

If, say, around election time there happened to be a child murderer on the loose and he was caught. The story was well reported in the papers and on the TV.

I would be very happy, however If I also lived on a street where every house had been broken into I wouldn't be happy enough to vote for this commssioner.

If before every election the PA, where forced to publish their stats, a leaflet through every door so everybody gets to see them.

You will not be able to hide figures like 1 child murderer caught, but 15% rise in burglery. 1 serial killer caught, but 20% rise in violent crime.

You have to give the public some credit, we're not all muppets that can easily be romanced by a bit of good publicity.

Fear of crime is much bigger than the reality of crime; this is one of the problems with this proposal. It's an emotive issue which will be exploited by our feeble excuses for politicians. You only have to look at the banal dialogue currently being had through the media in the pre-election frenzy to see that. Crime statistics are already freely available to the public; it's just most people prefer to rely on the warped view they get through the media (hence the fear of crime) rather than seek out a more informed picture. I don't, however, dispute that police forces and authorities could do more to inform the public. But how quickly would the Press jump on them for the cost involved in doing that (say by leafleting all properties)?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don't think it will work that way.

Maybe the problem is I am cynical, but I think given a large enough "carrot", the public will let the commissioner get away with a hell of a lot. Look at our government. They have systematically sold our economy to outside countries, as well as wasting billions of pounds on various projects, letting more immigrants in (and various other things) but because they promised tax cuts, we voted them in (well, I didn't, but a lot of people did). Not only did we vote them in initially, but while they were doing that, we voted them in for a second term.

I heard it said somewhere that while people individually are intelligent, witty etc., people as a group can be extremely stupid and prone to panic.

Originally Posted by carlingman

Well i for one think this thread is bound to wander being as Speed Cameras are such a hot topic at the moment.

I have read this thread from the start and it has thrown up some very interesting points.

As for yours two comments above I will offer two things.

Firstly we have mods to decide whether it has strayed far too much off topic.



Secondly sorry teach but a big sigh says and adds nothing as you often tell us you know where the unsubscribe option is

Anyhows to drift back on to the topic i think the idea will work dependant on the area as down with us the Police are in the Councillors Pockets and vice versa.

So an independantly elected one could be a bonus.

As the original poster I believe I have a right to steer this thread where I want it to go.

Originally Posted by scastle

I heard it said somewhere that while people individually are intelligent, witty etc., people as a group can be extremely stupid and prone to panic.

Well I thought about that in some detail and told myself an extremely pithy joke before going down the pub with some mates, talking about Jody Marsh for a while then we all spoiled our Calvin Klein keks when we missed last orders








Is it time to close this thread?!