I think this is a stupid Idea

No i don't think so.I would suggest to those who want to discuss speed cameras

to go here

Or to just type speed cameras into the forum search box.They will find a fair few threads about the subject.

Originally Posted by Pierre

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

And you can *get* that, as I keep saying, by stopping politicians from using the Police as a political football!!!

The first thing a politician wants to do is to meddle with something to "show they're doing something". Unfortunately they don't realise that sometimes the best form of management is "hands off" and let the people *doing* the job actually *do* their job.

Well, firstly, I would say that ALL crime needs to be dealt with.

Yes, of course, but resources have to be used efficiently.

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.

I'm sure you would, but that is letting fear over-ride logic.

It makes as much sense as people stopping using trains and going back to cars because of disasters like Hatfield, when, in fact, the number of deaths on the roads each year are the equivalent of a Hatfield *every two days*!

Yet road accidents don't get media coverage unless they're really spectacular, but rail accidents are big news.

Using all those resources to chase the Ripper may have made people *think* they were safer, but not at the expense of any/ all other crime being given a lower priority as a result.

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.

That is evident. People's *perceptions* of what the risks of crime are and what the *actual* risks may be are two entirely different things.

Until you can step back and look at the situation *objectively* you are not going to understand what I am talking about.

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.

And this is a *perfect* example of what I am talking about.

Valuable and scarce resources are being expended to deal with a problem which is actually *incredibly* rare in comparison to burglaries, violence and other such crimes, because of the high profile that case got.

The *fact* of the matter is that a child is still much more likely to be abused or harmed or even killed by a close family member rather than a stranger or someone working as a caretaker, yet this fact is swamped by a mass of unreasoning emotion.

You consider it a "small price", but consider the many people who may have been mugged or had their houses broken into because resources that could have been used to deal with the criminals who commit those common offences were being dedicated to something that that is extremely rare.

Try telling someone "sorry your house was broken into or you were mugged, but that's a small price to pay to stop another Holly and Jessica, isn't it?" and see what sort of response you get.

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????

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort, but, once again, you make my point for me perfectly, because *THAT* is exactly the sort of rhetoric that candidates for an elected position like we're discussing would use to "prove" that *they* are the best person for the job!!

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.

If you were a member of their families I would not expect you to be able to look at the situation in a logical and non-emotional manner.

However I would hope that other people *would* be able to step back and see the fallacies present in your arguments.

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.

And once more you miss the point. The crimes you list there are *not* the ones that stick in the public consciousness because they do *not* get the mass media coverage.

The public in general do not think about these things in a non-emotional manner and putting up an official for election who *will* exploit public emotion to get the job is *not* a good idea.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

And you can *get* that, as I keep saying, by stopping politicians from using the Police as a political football!!!

And you could get it through this new proposal too.

The first thing a politician wants to do is to meddle with something to "show they're doing something". Unfortunately they don't realise that sometimes the best form of management is "hands off" and let the people *doing* the job actually *do* their job.

Or sometimes the best thing to do is change it.

Yes, of course, but resources have to be used efficiently.

Agreed, whose to say they wont be under this proposal?

I'm sure you would, but that is letting fear over-ride logic.

It makes as much sense as people stopping using trains and going back to cars because of disasters like Hatfield, when, in fact, the number of deaths on the roads each year are the equivalent of a Hatfield *every two days*

Yet road accidents don't get media coverage unless they're really spectacular, but rail accidents are big news.

Using all those resources to chase the Ripper may have made people *think* they were safer, but not at the expense of any/ all other crime being given a lower priority as a result. [/quote]

This analogy does not wash. If there is a serial killer on the loose the resources to catch him would be the same if it was plastered over the media or not. (In fact in such cases the media is essential in helping to catch him)

Also the resources for different types of crime vary. A loose serial killer will not affect the booby on the beat apart from him keeping an eye out for an ID on a description. Small teams of CID etc would be the main resource.

Its a weak argument

That is evident. People's *perceptions* of what the risks of crime are and what the *actual* risks may be are two entirely different things.

Until you can step back and look at the situation *objectively* you are not going to understand what I am talking about.

I know exactly what your talking about.

And this is a *perfect* example of what I am talking about.

No its not, in your post you say the measures undertaken after the Soham murders are over the top, clogging up the system.

But it was evident from the inquest afterwards that the system was flawed. But you stand point would be not to change anything becuase the risk is still small.

Sorry, not acceptable and no government could take that stand point becuase if they wilingly did nothing and a repeat (however statistically small) happened then they will have failed to fufill one of their main duties and that is to protect the people.

Valuable and scarce resources are being expended to deal with a problem which is actually *incredibly* rare in comparison to burglaries, violence and other such crimes, because of the high profile that case got.

But it's a problem that needed fixing

The *fact* of the matter is that a child is still much more likely to be abused or harmed or even killed by a close family member rather than a stranger or someone working as a caretaker, yet this fact is swamped by a mass of unreasoning emotion.

Yes but no matter how *factual* that point is completely irrelevant.

You cannot do anything about the family or friend abusing the child until it comes out.

Here the authorities were presented with a system failure that could put children at risk and they are therefore duty bound to fix it. Not emotion - duty of care

You consider it a "small price", but consider the many people who may have been mugged or had their houses broken into because resources that could have been used to deal with the criminals who commit those common offences were being dedicated to something that that is extremely rare.

Whose playing the emotion card now....

I do consider those people and any future commisioner would be wise to as well.

Try telling someone "sorry your house was broken into or you were mugged, but that's a small price to pay to stop another Holly and Jessica, isn't it?" and see what sort of response you get.

Well I'll take you up on that becuase I think any right minded decent human being would consider the life of two children worth more than a few possessions

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort,but, once again, you make my point for me perfectly, because *THAT* is exactly the sort of rhetoric that candidates for an elected position like we're discussing would use to "prove" that *they* are the best person for the job!!

Good, I want the best person for the job.

If you were a member of their families I would not expect you to be able to look at the situation in a logical and non-emotional manner.

However I would hope that other people *would* be able to step back and see the fallacies present in your arguments.

I think you should read through your again.

And once more you miss the point. The crimes you list there are *not* the ones that stick in the public consciousness because they do *not* get the mass media coverage.

No I don't miss the point.

I know that these crimes are not the media savvy ones. But don't make the mistake of thinking joe public is as thick as you think he is.

These crimes are the ones where any future PA can make the best political ground and are the ones they should concentrate on.

The public in general do not think about these things in a non-emotional manner and putting up an official for election who *will* exploit public emotion to get the job is *not* a good idea.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Pierre

And you could get it through this new proposal too.



Or sometimes the best thing to do is change it.

and sometimes the best thing is to leave well alone, The Police force in my view isnt broke, its just bogged down with paper work and red tape.
If it was as easy for the coppers to go out an nick somoen for acting suspicious then maybe crime rates would fall, however liberals have been fighting, (and quite rightly in some cases) to extend rights to people to be able to walk the streets at whatever time and not be hassled by the police.

I know from experience that it happens, the amount of times I've been arrested under suspicion of something, to find out that the guy they were looking for is skinny with long red hair ( I check the mirror 19st shaved head that was dark brown) I guess its an easy mistake to make at night.
And its embarrassing to be arrested in front of people, especially when your innocent. I put up with questioning, but arresting is going too far in some cases.

As with all professions theres good cops and bad cops, the bad ones make the headlines, the good ones dont because it isnt sensational.
Making the head of police or whatever a political pawn is a really bad mistake in my oppinion, we choose him the gov controls him, we would have very little input, we couldnt get him to put things right, we couldnt get him to abolish paperwork and get more cops back on the beat.

In Thornaby we have a lot of community wardens, they do a decent job, but the crimes still there, its a step in the right direction, but they need more powers to deter the yobs etc.

Social crime I htink needs to be given a priority, the police should have guidlines at how long it should take them to answer a call, depending upon emergencies etc .

I'm blabbering, now and I wanted to green rep Graham for his last post but it wouldnt let me

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

and sometimes the best thing is to leave well alone,

OK

The Police force in my view isnt broke, its just bogged down with paper work and red tape.

So we should leave it well alone - all bogged down with paperwork and red tape.

If it was as easy for the coppers to go out an nick somoen for acting suspicious then maybe crime rates would fall, however liberals have been fighting, (and quite rightly in some cases) to extend rights to people to be able to walk the streets at whatever time and not be hassled by the police.

I know from experience that it happens, the amount of times I've been arrested under suspicion of something, to find out that the guy they were looking for is skinny with long red hair ( I check the mirror 19st shaved head that was dark brown) I guess its an easy mistake to make at night.
And its embarrassing to be arrested in front of people, especially when your innocent. I put up with questioning, but arresting is going too far in some cases.

As with all professions theres good cops and bad cops, the bad ones make the headlines, the good ones dont because it isnt sensational.
Making the head of police or whatever a political pawn is a really bad mistake in my oppinion, we choose him the gov controls him, we would have very little input, we couldnt get him to put things right, we couldnt get him to abolish paperwork and get more cops back on the beat.

In Thornaby we have a lot of community wardens, they do a decent job, but the crimes still there, its a step in the right direction, but they need more powers to deter the yobs etc.

Social crime I htink needs to be given a priority, the police should have guidlines at how long it should take them to answer a call, depending upon emergencies etc .

But if these are your concerns then being able to vote for a commissioner who promises to address these concerns will be a good thing - wont it?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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?

They may not ignore it, but we could end up with a situation where officers investigating a crime that's already happened are pulled off it prematurely.


BTW, if the Police force have to "just have regard for his policies", doesn't that mean they do not have to implement them? Surely if they don't have to implement the policies, that means the commissioner would just be an extra layer of beurocracy, that wouldn't achieve much apart from costing the Police time, and the taxpayer millions of pounds (nationally) a year?

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

..... I wanted to green rep Graham for his last post but it wouldnt let me

Done

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Pierre

But if these are your concerns then being able to vote for a commissioner who promises to address these concerns will be a good thing - wont it?

Not if he or she cannot force the police to implement their policies.

Originally Posted by Pierre

But if these are your concerns then being able to vote for a commissioner who promises to address these concerns will be a good thing - wont it?

Why? I'm concerned about speeding drivers, your concerned about speed cameras. Who's concern is the commissioner going to address?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

Why? I'm concerned about speeding drivers, your concerned about speed cameras. Who's concern is the commissioner going to address?

A good one would be able to find a balance between the two.

By targeting speeding drivers in built up areas where children play, yet removing cameras from nice straight dual carriegeways.
__________________

Originally Posted by scastle

Not if he or she cannot force the police to implement their policies.

A good one would be able to influence police policy.

Originally Posted by Pierre

And you could get it through this new proposal too.

So, you have two options:

1) Spend a lot of money introducing an expensive and time consuming process that will attempt to elect someone who will represent the public's views, but will probably be influenced massively by political rhetoric and media spin

2) Stop political meddling in policing which will cost nothing and allow resources to be devoted to what they *should* be concentrated on ie dealing with crime!

I know which I'd go for...!

Or sometimes the best thing to do is change it.

I give you the examples of the NHS and education as two other prime candidates for the argument that the best option is to keep political hands off.

Politicians are continually fiddling and meddling with these "because that's what the public want", when what all those who are actually in the front lines really want is to be left to get on with the job and stop having to chop and change every couple of years because the government wants to look good and the opposition wants to get elected.

Agreed, whose to say they wont be under this proposal?

Again, you are spending money and using resources to try to fix a problem that could very probably be fixed by just *leaving* well alone.

This analogy does not wash. If there is a serial killer on the loose the resources to catch him would be the same if it was plastered over the media or not. (In fact in such cases the media is essential in helping to catch him)

But that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about *your* claim that young women would feel "safer" because of the resources being put into that case.

However the fact of the matter is that such a perception is false.

Also the resources for different types of crime vary. A loose serial killer will not affect the booby on the beat apart from him keeping an eye out for an ID on a description. Small teams of CID etc would be the main resource.

Its a weak argument

No, that's a Straw Man.

I know exactly what your talking about.

Pardon me if I doubt that, especially since, from the example above, it seems you're not even sure what *you* are talking about.

No its not, in your post you say the measures undertaken after the Soham murders are over the top, clogging up the system.

But it was evident from the inquest afterwards that the system was flawed. But you stand point would be not to change anything becuase the risk is still small.

And, once again, you resort to political style rhetoric and false assumptions, demonstrating that you do not understand what I am talking about.

I did not, nor would I say "change nothing because the risk is so small".

Yes, checks should be made, yes, sex offenders should not get jobs working or near children, however the sort of panicky knee-jerk "we must be seen to be doing something" political reaction that followed Soham was *not* an efficient nor sensible use of resources and caused all sorts of problems because it was ill thought out.

Sorry, not acceptable and no government could take that stand point becuase if they wilingly did nothing and a repeat (however statistically small) happened then they will have failed to fufill one of their main duties and that is to protect the people.

Again, political rhetoric. Neither a single high-profile case nor emotive arguments should *not* determine policy.

But it's a problem that needed fixing

Fine, I agree, but fix it in a *sensible* way, not with a knee-jerk that causes all sorts of other difficulties.

Yes but no matter how *factual* that point is completely irrelevant.

Rubbish! Many more children are abused by family and friends than by strangers and many more could be protected from abuse and harm by targetting resources into Social Services to *stop* it from happening in the first place.

You cannot do anything about the family or friend abusing the child until it comes out.

Here the authorities were presented with a system failure that could put children at risk and they are therefore duty bound to fix it. Not emotion - duty of care

And what about the "duty of care" to all those children being abused "in private"? It seems to be a case of "out of sight, out of mind"...

Whose playing the emotion card now....

I do consider those people and any future commisioner would be wise to as well.

There is nothing "emotional" about it. It is a simple fact of logic. And that commissioner would most probably be more interested in exploiting emotion than facts, just like many other politicians.

Well I'll take you up on that becuase I think any right minded decent human being would consider the life of two children worth more than a few possessions

Obviously it's their public duty to be burgled or mugged to help ensure that no children are murdered... (Note: this is *irony*)

Good, I want the best person for the job.

What was that line from Douglas Adams (or possibly Arthur C Clarke)? Those who seek public office and are capable of getting themselves elected to it are, ipso facto, entirely *unsuited* to the position...?!

The point is you would *NOT* get the "best person for the job", you'd get whoever could *convince* the public that they were best for the job which is an *entirely* different matter!

I think you should read through your again.

Read through my *what* again? My post? My arguments?

If there are fallacies in my arguments, please, point them out, but don't just use vague implication to suggest they are there without actually backing it up with proof.

No I don't miss the point.

I know that these crimes are not the media savvy ones. But don't make the mistake of thinking joe public is as thick as you think he is.

Individually I'm sure, just like politicians Joe and Josephine Public are very nice people who I'd quite like if I met socially.

However "The Public" as a whole has a tendency to "mob mentality" and that benefits nobody.

These crimes are the ones where any future PA can make the best political ground and are the ones they should concentrate on.

As I said previously:

"The public in general do not think about these things in a non-emotional manner and putting up an official for election who *will* exploit public emotion to get the job is *not* a good idea."
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

OK

So we should leave it well alone - all bogged down with paperwork and red tape.

Pierre, this sort of thing is really not doing your arguments any credit.

In case you really don't understand, what timewarrior and I mean by "leaving well alone" is *getting rid of* large amounts of the paperwork and red tape that successive Governments have dumped on the Police so they can *get on* with the job of dealing with criminals instead of Government "targets".

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

So, you have two options:

1) Spend a lot of money introducing an expensive and time consuming process that will attempt to elect someone who will represent the public's views, but will probably be influenced massively by political rhetoric and media spin

2) Stop political meddling in policing which will cost nothing and allow resources to be devoted to what they *should* be concentrated on ie dealing with crime!

I know which I'd go for...!

Fair enough, but I'm willing to give it try.

I give you the examples of the NHS and education as two other prime candidates for the argument that the best option is to keep political hands off.

Politicians are continually fiddling and meddling with these "because that's what the public want", when what all those who are actually in the front lines really want is to be left to get on with the job and stop having to chop and change every couple of years because the government wants to look good and the opposition wants to get elected.

True, I don't think health and certainly education have been managed very well. However, you have certain degree of freedom and choice with Health and Education, you pick and choose hospitals and schools or choose to go private.

You can't do that with the police, you can't decide to use another police force or use a private police force.

Your stuck with them, and if they are not coming up with the goods they're not accountable - to you at least.

Again, you are spending money and using resources to try to fix a problem that could very probably be fixed by just *leaving* well alone.

Probably...Probably not. I'd still like a say.

But that was not what I was talking about. I was talking about *your* claim that young women would feel "safer" because of the resources being put into that case.

However the fact of the matter is that such a perception is false.

True, statistically, it is a false perception. But as I say the same resources would be put into an investigation like that whether there was public mass hysteria or not.

No, that's a Straw Man.

I don't see why. Care to expand?

Pardon me if I doubt that, especially since, from the example above, it seems you're not even sure what *you* are talking about.

I'm very sure thank you.

And, once again, you resort to political style rhetoric and false assumptions, demonstrating that you do not understand what I am talking about.

Firstly, as seen as you don't even know any details about this proposal you're the one making most of the the assumptions.

Secondly, I wish you'd stop trying to propose that I do not understand what your talking about. It's not that intellectual.

I did not, nor would I say "change nothing because the risk is so small".
Yes, checks should be made, yes, sex offenders should not get jobs working or near children, however the sort of panicky knee-jerk "we must be seen to be doing something" political reaction that followed Soham was *not* an efficient nor sensible use of resources and caused all sorts of problems because it was ill thought out.

It may have been Knee-Jerk, but they had to implement some measures immediately.

Again, political rhetoric. Neither a single high-profile case nor emotive arguments should *not* determine policy.

Not emotive, maybe political. Sometimes a single case may change policy, whats wrong with that? If due to this case serious flaws were found in the system.

Fine, I agree, but fix it in a *sensible* way, not with a knee-jerk that causes all sorts of other difficulties.

Sometimes you don't have the time

**Warning** emotive political rhetoric - However unlikely, if another tragedy had occurred due to this system post Soham, they would have been strung up, and rightly so, for failing to act on a known issue.

Rubbish! Many more children are abused by family and friends than by strangers and many more could be protected from abuse and harm by targetting resources into Social Services to *stop* it from happening in the first place.

It is rubbish, you introduced this into the discussion and it has nothing to do with it.

We're talking about the police not Social Services, if they were proposing a Social Services commissioner then fair enough. There are lot of public services were resources are an issue but that is a wider discussion away from this particular issue.

And what about the "duty of care" to all those children being abused "in private"? It seems to be a case of "out of sight, out of mind"...

Again irrelevant, oh and emotional politcal rhetoric as well.

If the abuse was brought to the polices attention and they failed to act, then you'd have a point

As the abuse, as you point out, is in private and behind close doors just what do you expect do be done?? Issue the police with a crystal ball? They can only act on something if its brought to their attention.

What has this to do with the proposal? Going off on meaningless tangents like this does not help.

There is nothing "emotional" about it. It is a simple fact of logic. And that commissioner would most probably be more interested in exploiting emotion than facts, just like many other politicians.

Yes there is, you were asking me to consider all these other people who will be mugged and burgled because resources are being used on a high profile case i.e. Soham.

But you cannot know if this would be the case. For a person who usually likes to be so factual you have no way at all of substantiating your point.

(Note: this is *irony*)

Yes, a poor attempt at it.

What was that line from Douglas Adams (or possibly Arthur C Clarke)? Those who seek public office and are capable of getting themselves elected to it are, ipso facto, entirely *unsuited* to the position...?!

The point is you would *NOT* get the "best person for the job", you'd get whoever could *convince* the public that they were best for the job which is an *entirely* different matter!

I take your point but you don't know that. You might get somebody very good, who does a very good job.

Read through my *what* again? My post? My arguments?

If there are fallacies in my arguments, please, point them out, but don't just use vague implication to suggest they are there without actually backing it up with proof.

I thought I had been pointing out the weaknesses in you argument, and there are plenty of them.

Individually I'm sure, just like politicians Joe and Josephine Public are very nice people who I'd quite like if I met socially.

However "The Public" as a whole has a tendency to "mob mentality" and that benefits nobody.

True, but I'm failed to be convinced that they would be romanced by a failing Police Commissioner if he happened to solve a high profile crime just before polling day.

As I said previously:

"The public in general do not think about these things in a non-emotional manner and putting up an official for election who *will* exploit public emotion to get the job is *not* a good idea."

Well at last a well reasoned paragraph. Fair enough. We'll just have to wait and see. Chances are it'll never happen anyway.
__________________

Pierre, this sort of thing is really not doing your arguments any credit.

In case you really don't understand, what timewarrior and I mean by "leaving well alone" is *getting rid of* large amounts of the paperwork and red tape that successive Governments have dumped on the Police so they can *get on* with the job of dealing with criminals instead of Government "targets".

Well if that's what he meant he didn't articulate it very well. I was just pointing out the conflict in his opening paragraphs.

I agree that red tape and paperwork has to be reduced, whose to say that this proposal will not be the catalyst for that?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by scastle

They may not ignore it, but we could end up with a situation where officers investigating a crime that's already happened are pulled off it prematurely.

So a detective would be pulled of a hostage case or bank robbery to do beat work????

Originally Posted by scastle

BTW, if the Police force have to "just have regard for his policies", doesn't that mean they do not have to implement them? Surely if they don't have to implement the policies, that means the commissioner would just be an extra layer of beurocracy, that wouldn't achieve much apart from costing the Police time, and the taxpayer millions of pounds (nationally) a year?

With regards basically means unless it doesn't make operational sense, the cheif constable should take into account the PA (currently) or commissioner (proposed) policies.
So if the commisioner suggests the police should tackle the vandalism outside the local chip shop by a gang of kids, then the chief constable should then incorporate that into his plans for the police tackling crime.
If the commisioner says "I want the police to monitor paedophiles 24 hours a day" the chief will obviously not do that as it's frankly impractical.

Currently Derbyshire has 17 people on the PA, you think 1 person replacing that will cost more???
God I want that job if it's going to be getting 17 salaries! wow!

Graham, the police do not do checks on people working with children, therefore your claim that police resources would be used is factually incorrect.

Claiming the commisioner would be influenced by political parties, well, out of Derbyshire's 17 members of the PA, only 3 are appointed in a non-politically connected manner!
So currently there's more chance of political meddling!
Gee, lets keep that why don't we?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So a detective would be pulled of a hostage case or bank robbery to do beat work????

No, but they may be pulled off any investigations they are involved in to help solve more politically conveniant crimes.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Currently Derbyshire has 17 people on the PA, you think 1 person replacing that will cost more???

The problem is, it won't just be one person will it? At the very least he'll need a Personal Assistant (OK, these don't cost an awful lot relatively) and other office staff.

It's also worth bearing in mind that those 17 people are all councillors (who are already elected) or magistrates, and reading that article it sounds like they are on the Police Authority part time (so shouldn't be drawing a full-time salary).

Claiming the commisioner would be influenced by political parties, well, out of Derbyshire's 17 members of the PA, only 3 are appointed in a non-politically connected manner!
So currently there's more chance of political meddling!

The problem with a commissioner (as I see it) is, as is stated in the article, he or she may have one particular belief that he or she thinks is more important than other crimes. For instance, a commissioner of a certain Ethnic group (for example) may place more importance on racially motivated crime, and therefore influence the Chief Constable* to devote more resources to race crimes.

The current system is designed (as I understand it) to counteract the possibility of the Authority becoming fixated with one issue.


*Yes, I do realise that Chief Constables could do this anyway. I just think it's important for the Police to be as impartial as possible.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Fair enough, but I'm willing to give it try.

Fine. Where are you going to get the money? More taxes? Or take it from some other area that also wants the cash.

you have certain degree of freedom and choice with Health and Education, you pick and choose hospitals and schools or choose to go private.

You can't do that with the police, you can't decide to use another police force or use a private police force.

You can hire private security or private investigators.

Your stuck with them, and if they are not coming up with the goods they're not accountable - to you at least.

No, they're accountable to our *already* elected representatives.

I was talking about *your* claim that young women would feel "safer" [...] the fact of the matter is that such a perception is false.

True, statistically, it is a false perception. But as I say the same resources would be put into an investigation like that whether there was public mass hysteria or not. [/QUOTE]

I never said they wouldn't. I said people wouldn't *be* safer which you have now acknowledged.

I don't see why. Care to expand?

You brought up the matter of people "feeling safer". You then imply that I'm suggesting that the actual allocation of resources would be different depending on public interest/ media coverage. I said nothing of the sort.

Firstly, as seen as you don't even know any details about this proposal you're the one making most of the the assumptions.

Sorry what was this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4252275.stm link in the very first post in this thread talking about, then?

Secondly, I wish you'd stop trying to propose that I do not understand what your talking about. It's not that intellectual.

Yet in the quote above I had to counter your claim that I was suggesting the allocation of resources would be different and in the one immediately below I had to counter your suggestion that I was saying "do nothing".

Had you read and understood my points those would not have been necessary.

It may have been Knee-Jerk, but they had to implement some measures immediately.

Why? Because there was an *imminent* danger of another murder or murders taking place or because (to quote from further down this thread):

Originally Posted by Pierre

**Warning** emotive political rhetoric - However unlikely, if another tragedy had occurred due to this system post Soham, they would have been strung up, and rightly so, for failing to act on a known issue.

And I don't at all agree that this is "rightly so", but I will address this later.

Not emotive, maybe political. Sometimes a single case may change policy, whats wrong with that? If due to this case serious flaws were found in the system.

Yes, a single case may change policy. And if there are flaws, they should be fixed. I entirely agree.

However it is the *mechanism* of change which is important and, once again, I point out that knee-jerk reactions or attempts to pander to public feelings are *not* the way to go.

Sometimes you don't have the time

**Warning** emotive political rhetoric - However unlikely, if another tragedy had occurred due to this system post Soham, they would have been strung up, and rightly so, for failing to act on a known issue.

As I said above, was there an *imminent* danger of another murder? Well, no, actually there wasn't.

It may also have been the case that the mess that was cobbled together to provide for checks could actually have left chilren *more* at risk!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...780564,00.html

Schools are trying to bypass official checks on whether new staff have criminal records because they are so desperate to cover teacher shortages before the start of the new school year.

Schools complain that the checks - designed to protect pupils from child abusers - take too long and that backog at the Criminal Records Bureau, which undertakes the work, means that requests are not dealt with for months.

It is rubbish, you introduced this into the discussion and it has nothing to do with it.

We're talking about the police not Social Services, if they were proposing a Social Services commissioner then fair enough. There are lot of public services were resources are an issue but that is a wider discussion away from this particular issue.

We are talking about the sensible allocation and usage of resources. And the Police and Social Services do *not* act in isolation from each other.

If Social Services could get the resources and funding to do their jobs better, the Police may well have *less* work to do dealing with delinquent teenagers, vandalism etc etc.

Again irrelevant, oh and emotional politcal rhetoric as well.

If the abuse was brought to the polices attention and they failed to act, then you'd have a point

Entirely relevant! The point is to deal with the problem *before* the Police have to expend their resources on it!!

What has this to do with the proposal? Going off on meaningless tangents like this does not help.

Trying to consider problems in isolation instead of seeing them as part of an entire system also does not help.

Yes there is, you were asking me to consider all these other people who will be mugged and burgled because resources are being used on a high profile case i.e. Soham.

But you cannot know if this would be the case. For a person who usually likes to be so factual you have no way at all of substantiating your point.

No, of course I cannot *know* this would be the case, nor can I demonstrate the truth of the proposition, however there *is* a logical connection that can be seen by anyone who cares to think about it.

I take your point but you don't know that. You might get somebody very good, who does a very good job.

Ok, you *might* get someone who does a very good job, but I think that is less likely than getting a pseudo-politician who is more interested in pandering to public opinion to make themselves look better than actually concentrating on what the public needs (which is *not* the same as what they want!)

I thought I had been pointing out the weaknesses in you argument, and there are plenty of them.

I cannot help what you think, however I have yet to see any evidence of this.

True, but I'm failed to be convinced that they would be romanced by a failing Police Commissioner if he happened to solve a high profile crime just before polling day.

Then please excuse me if I am somewhat more cynical than you, especially where The Public's short term memory is concerned.

Well at last a well reasoned paragraph.

Gosh, that's *so* kind of you...

We'll just have to wait and see. Chances are it'll never happen anyway.

Which is my fervant hope.
__________________

In case you really don't understand, what timewarrior and I mean by "leaving well alone" is *getting rid of* large amounts of the paperwork and red tape that successive Governments have dumped on the Police so they can *get on* with the job of dealing with criminals instead of Government "targets".

Well if that's what he meant he didn't articulate it very well. I was just pointing out the conflict in his opening paragraphs.[/quote]

It looked more like an attempt to score a cheap point.

I agree that red tape and paperwork has to be reduced, whose to say that this proposal will not be the catalyst for that?

By *introducing* another elected official and another set of hoops for the Police to jump through, you're going to *reduce* red tape and paperwork? Somehow I can't see that happening...
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Graham, the police do not do checks on people working with children, therefore your claim that police resources would be used is factually incorrect.

If I had *said* that "the Police do checks on people working with children" you would have been right.

Claiming the commisioner would be influenced by political parties,

Where did I say that? Oh, it appears I didn't say that either.

I used the word "politician" (with a small "p" to distinguish between them and MPs) to refer to someone who has to campaign to get their position and, as such, will be more concerned about how what they are doing *looks* to the Public, instead of whether they're necessarily doing the job well.