I think this is a stupid Idea

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

However I think most people here have domonstrated why this idea by Michael Howard is a stupid one.

No they haven't, most people here argueing against the proposals don't appear to actually understand them.

Here's a few of the arguments so far:

1. It's an extra layer of buerocracy.
Wrong, it actually replaces a layer of buerocracy with a smaller one.

2. It will cost more.
Wrong, as it's only one person it will cost less than the current PA system and free up the current councellors to deal with other matters.

3. The commisioner will just tackle popularist crimes
I've yet to hear why it's a bad thing that the police tackle crimes which effect the local populous.
Also, the commisioner cannot make the cheif constable do anything which is not operationally feasable, just as with the PA

4. The commisioner will be powerless
Wrong, the cheif constable will have to work the commisioners wishes into his operations as long as they are feasable

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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?

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

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.
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" )

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

People don't know that it has anything to do with councillors, they just blame the police. Just look through the comments made by some people here and you'll see many don't have aany idea what the PA does.
With a commisioner they'll actually have a high profile individual, and will be able to do something about them if crime in the area hasn't been tackled.
Also the commisioner will be able to fire the cheif constable if he doesn't do his job (note for any paranoid conspiracists out there: doing his job does not mean doing every single thing that the commisioner says!)

Originally Posted by scastle

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

Perhaps, if you have an ineffective home secretary then that is going to have a knock on effect with the police.
If the HS brings in new laws when old ones are more effective as long as they are enforced (take binge drinking, if current drink laws were enforced you couldn't get binge drinking, you wouldn't need so many police at chucking out time, but then, you wouldn't get so much tax from the booze would you?) and makes the police spend more time behind desks filling out paperwork or even out on the street filling out paperwork, then the system can't work very well.

Originally Posted by scastle

Where?

Well america for one, and not just New York. As Graham stated in a previous thread (pretty sure it was graham) many other cities have reduced crime due to initiatives brought in by their elected commisioners.
I suggest you email David Davis and ask him

Originally Posted by scastle

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

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!

No they haven't, most people here argueing against the proposals don't appear to actually understand them.

Oooh a very nice side swipe at our intelligence there.Thanks. I and others here who don't agree with you are considered unintelligent enough to understand Howard's proposal.Does that mean we have less intelligence than the average man or woman in the street?And the average voter probably understands them better than we do? If not it's a waste of time making the proposal if they can't understand it.

But then it sounds like a desperate attempt to sound and look different from Labour in my opinion rather than something that the Tory party might actually believe truly feasable.

If the Tories do win the next election it will be something that I look to see them do.......

Originally Posted by Xaccers

No they haven't, most people here argueing against the proposals don't appear to actually understand them.

Cobblers. If that's the right level of debate I've reached. And with that I'm off.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Oooh a very nice side swipe at our intelligence there.Thanks. I and others here who don't agree with you are considered unintelligent enough to understand Howard's proposal.Does that mean we have less intelligence than the average man or woman in the street?And the average voter probably understands them better than we do? If not it's a waste of time making the proposal if they can't understand it.

But then it sounds like a desperate attempt to sound and look different from Labour in my opinion rather than something that the Tory party might actually believe truly feasable.

If the Tories do win the next election it will be something that I look to see them do.......

I was editing my post while you were adding these comments

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I was editing my post while you were adding these comments

Really?So?...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Really?So?...

So go back and read it again :P

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So go back and read it again :P

What a pity you didn't edit it BEFORE you posted!!! and is it supposed to be some form of apology that you re-edited it?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Incognitas

What a pity you didn't edit it BEFORE you posted!!! and is it supposed to be some form of apology that you re-edited it?

Since when is saying someone doesn't understand something the same as insulting their intelligence?

[punky]

Originally Posted by scastle

I do agree, with your post, and I do agree that not all commissioners would concentrate on the trendy crimes. However, I do think some would, and that is what concerns me.

True, but it can work both ways. If people voted in someone who abolished speed cameras, but unsolved crimes, and car accidents went up, then that would backfire. The advantage of having a publically accountable chief superintendent is that if such a situation did arise, the public would only have a finite amount of time before they can remove gim from his job (rather than relying on his boss (who is probably his mate too) to do it via proxy).

Speed cameras, like parking tickets are a major annoyance, but people who hate them don't lose perspective on the issue. Bugularies, rape, murder, muggins, assault, are all more important, and as such will always be more 'populist' areas. At least i'd bloody hope so.

Xaccers, I much prefer your revised post. Please just admit the error of judgement on the original then we can all love each other - and disagree with each other - as before.


Next stop, resolving that thorny Middle East situation

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by punky

Speed cameras, like parking tickets are a major annoyance, but people who hate them don't lose perspective on the issue. Bugularies, rape, murder, muggins, assault, are all more important, and as such will always be more 'populist' areas. At least i'd bloody hope so.

Well put.
Someone who campains on tackling Bugularies, rape, murder, muggins, assaults and revising the placement of cameras is likely to get more votes than someone who campains on tackling Bugularies, rape, murder, muggins, assaults and abolishing cameras.

Most people who are anti cameras are actually pro camera as long as they are placed in areas where they will do the most to save lives, not earn the most.

[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.

Can we sod the cameras off now?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As Graham stated in a previous thread (pretty sure it was graham)

It wasn't.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

It wasn't.

Sorry, I was refering to

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/sh...highlight=york

Where I believe you were trying to get accross the point that other cities have reduced crime throught initiatives other than zero tollerance.
Actually, you didn't get round to responding to my post #88, tsk and you've had over a year to do it *grin*

Of course the american system isn't what the Tories are proposing.