I think this is a stupid Idea

This is a fanstatic smiley to use when Graham (or anyone else) has backed you into a corner by the way.

I wonder if Marina has a painted into a corner smiley.

However I digress. I would like to add to Graham's comments about education that it would also be tremendously helpful If education was taken out of the hands of the government entirely.That way we might actually get some stability in education and an examination system that made some sense.I as a teacher am sick of being told how to teach by people who would frankly make cr@p teachers.

[Xaccers]

[QUOTE=scastle]No, but they may be pulled off any investigations they are involved in to help solve more politically conveniant crimes.[/qoute]

Like speed cameras and local burglaries?

Originally Posted by scastle

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).

Which the PA members already have so instead of 17 assistants they'll be just one. Now I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure one personal assistant won't be paid the same salary as 17 personal assistants, same as one commisioner won't be paid the equivalent of 17 PA members salaries, even part time salaries!

Originally Posted by scastle

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.

Elected on policies which the public want implimented, so if the commisioner gets voted in stating one of his policies will be to tackle race hate crimes, then by virtue of being voted in, his policies, all of them, are what the public want.
It will be up to the cheif constable to organise his forces to tackle race hate crimes, not the commisioner, therefore it will be up to the chief constable to ensure that other crimes are not ignored.
If crimes do end up being ignored, then the responsibility will be with the cheif constable (just as it is now) and not the commisioner.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Really?
In response to Pierre mentioning the backlog in the employee checks you said:

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

Now, as I said, no police resources are being dedicated to checking on the safety of employees working with children, and the people who do the checking don't deal with criminals who mug or break into houses.

The statement I made regarding political influence wasn't directed at you, hence the line break.


So, lets go over things for clarity:

The commisioner will be replacing a large amount of expensive beurocracy

The commisioner will be voted in on the merits of his policies

It will be up to the cheif constable to impliment those policies within operational expectations

The cheif constable will have operational independance as he currently does.

YOU could be the commisioner

[Pierre]

So, lets go over things for clarity:

The commisioner will be replacing a large amount of expensive beurocracy

The commisioner will be voted in on the merits of his policies

It will be up to the cheif constable to impliment those policies within operational expectations

The cheif constable will have operational independance as he currently does.

YOU could be the commisioner

Indeed,

I think a lot of people are resisting change because they see it as change for changes sake. But I think this particular motion could be a positive move. - However, as I daid earlier it's unlikely the Tories will get in so no need to worry.

Originally Posted by Graham

<snip.>

No need to come back at any of that as I've made my arguments and , in my opinion, you have failed to convincingly argue against them.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Really?
In response to Pierre mentioning the backlog in the employee checks you said:

Yes, I did. *None* of which says "the Police do checks on people working with children".

Now, as I said, no police resources are being dedicated to checking on the safety of employees working with children, and the people who do the checking don't deal with criminals who mug or break into houses.

The point is that many extra workers had to be drafted in to supplement those working at the Criminal Records Bureau in order to do all the checks the government all of a sudden required after Soham. Those workers cost money. Money (and workers) are resource. So resources that could have been used *by* the Police were being used elsewhere.

The statement I made regarding political influence wasn't directed at you, hence the line break.

In which case you could have made it clearer since it followed immediately after a comment that was definitely directed at me.

So, lets go over things for clarity:

The commisioner will be replacing a large amount of expensive beurocracy

Possibly. However it's more likely IM(cynical)V that they will just replace one lot of bureaucracy with another lot.

The commisioner will be voted in on the merits of his policies

Or, rather, they will be voted in depending on how good they can make themselves look whilst making their opponents look bad. Facts and relevant information will most probably be lost in the rhetoric.

It will be up to the cheif constable to impliment those policies within operational expectations

The cheif constable will have operational independance as he currently does.

So the elected official can claim that *they* said "we should do this" but was over-ridden by the Chief Constable, so it wasn't *their* fault (possibly despite the fact that it may have been an inefficient use of resources or a completely impractical or inappropriate policy but which sounded good to the media).

YOU could be the commisioner

*I* have more sense...!
__________________

Originally Posted by Pierre

No need to come back at any of that as I've made my arguments and , in my opinion, you have failed to convincingly argue against them.

And, in my opinion, this is the tactic of "declaring victory" in the hope that nobody will notice that you haven't made your arguments at all

[BBKing]

beurocracy

Ah, the old rule-by-butter again. Slippery customers.

[clairey]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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

Spread across the political parties involved. THe best work Parliament does is through it's cross party committes. The people on a Police Authority are also not voted by the electorate specifically to be on it, but are elected to represent their communities. THat is an important difference.

THat Graham's on fire isn't he?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Graham

And, in my opinion, this is the tactic of "declaring victory" in the hope that nobody will notice that you haven't made your arguments at all

You have a way far too high opinion of yourself.

Who said anything about declaring victory? as if a perceived "victory" over you would give me any pleasure.

This is not a competition, well it might be to you, it's a discussion.

All I said, if you read it for what it is, is that I have made my points, and you have made yours. The points you have made have failed to dissuade me from the opinion I have on this subject, becuase in my opinion they are weak and reactionary. Therefore, I do not see the reason for continuing the discussion any further.

That is all.

Victory indeed

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Yes, I did. *None* of which says "the Police do checks on people working with children".

The point is that many extra workers had to be drafted in to supplement those working at the Criminal Records Bureau in order to do all the checks the government all of a sudden required after Soham. Those workers cost money. Money (and workers) are resource. So resources that could have been used *by* the Police were being used elsewhere.

Thanks for that, now I've got a vision of goverment pen pushers running round after burglars and muggers!

Originally Posted by Graham

In which case you could have made it clearer since it followed immediately after a comment that was definitely directed at me.

I thought I had by giving a line break and discussing something which you hadn't said.
I'd sing a song right now, but you'd probably think that was about you...

Originally Posted by Graham

*I* have more sense...!

So rather than ensure that things get done to your standards you decline the chance, oh well, that's your choice I suppose.
Stick with the tried and tested "I don't like it, I can't give any evidence to back up why it would be a bad thing, and I don't see why I should suggest something better" argument.

Originally Posted by Pierre

No need to come back at any of that as I've made my arguments and , in my opinion, you have failed to convincingly argue against them.

Ok, you've not declared victory. But you've said Graham has "failed to convincingly argue against" your points and therefore there's "no need to come back at any". That's rather dismissive and hardly in the spirit of debate. Whatever you think about Graham's posts they have been considered - highly considered! - and have made a significant contribution to the thread (whether you or I agree with them or not) and are worthy of more than a brush off. If you're bored with the thread that's a different thing

For what it's worth, I like Clairey's point. Being specifically elected as a commissioner brings with it all kinds of political baggage and media inspired nonsense. At least with a PA there is a broad range of opinion from across the community which includes a majority elected to represent the community on all matters, not just policing. That sense of distance is I think important as is the ability for a variety of voices to have an input in the way communities are policed.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by andyl

Ok, you've not declared victory. But you've said Graham has "failed to convincingly argue against" your points and therefore there's "no need to come back at any". That's rather dismissive and hardly in the spirit of debate. Whatever you think about Graham's posts they have been considered - highly considered! - and have made a significant contribution to the thread (whether you or I agree with them or not) and are worthy of more than a brush off. If you're bored with the thread that's a different thing
.

I didn't know I would be set upon by on Grahams minders.

I like arguing with Graham, however I felt if I carried on I would be flogging a dead horse. But if it makes you feel any better.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Where is your evidence that this will incur extra cost? It may focus the police to use their resources more wisely and reduce costs, allowing for extra resources to put into areas where it is needed.

You can hire private security or private investigators.

Yes, you can usually find me around town flanked by my personal security guards.

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

And our *already* elected representatives have umpteen other things to concern themselves with.

This proposal will bring a bit focus.

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

Statistically

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.

Yes you did, from Post 71

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

Now, that's what that says to me. Wasting resources on a high profile case because it would look good to the public, implying that if that case wasn't so high profile the same amount of resources wouldn't be used.



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

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.

I agree to a point.

But in some issues "pandering to public feeling" and "addressing the publics concerns" are not the same thing.

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

Well, no, actually you don't know that. However, extremely, unlikely there was a risk.

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!

It may also be the case that the mess that was cobbled together saved a child from harm

We are talking about the sensible allocation and usage of resources.

No we're talking about the introduction of a Police commissioner, the cost of which will probably be less than the existing PAs

You have brought in the Social Services angle to try and back up your weak stance

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.

Yes all very nice, what has it got to do with the Police Commissioner?

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

And the introduction of a Police commissioner will prevent this how?

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

Yes, so the introduction of a Police Commissioner will bring the downfall of the "entire system"

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.

A very tenuous connection, but I wouldn't exactly call it logical.

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!)

Well we'd have to wait and see.

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

Look harder

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

Cynical is exactly what it is, is what your objection is based around. I think Xaccers summed it up well

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Stick with the tried and tested "I don't like it, I can't give any evidence to back up why it would be a bad thing, and I don't see why I should suggest something better" argument.

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

Takes one to know one.

Originally Posted by Pierre

You have a way far too high opinion of yourself.

Who said anything about declaring victory? as if a perceived "victory" over you would give me any pleasure.

This is not a competition, well it might be to you, it's a discussion.

And you need to get off your High Horse.

If you are going to have a discussion, discuss, don't simply say "I've made my arguments and , in my opinion, you have failed to convincingly argue against them." because that doesn't contribute anything to the debate (note: *not* a "competition"), but looks like an attempt to dismiss my points instead of countering them.

All I said, if you read it for what it is, is that I have made my points, and you have made yours.

No, the implication is that I have *failed* to make my points, seemingly because you don't want to accept my arguments are valid.

Therefore, I do not see the reason for continuing the discussion any further.

Neither do I.
__________________

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Thanks for that, now I've got a vision of goverment pen pushers running round after burglars and muggers!

Now substitute that vision for one of the Police needing to carry out checks but being unable to because everyone's looking at the backgrounds of people working or wanting to work with children.

I thought I had by giving a line break and discussing something which you hadn't said.

You thought incorrectly.

Just going on to a new paragraph doesn't mean you're changing the subject.

See?

I'd sing a song right now, but you'd probably think that was about you...

Depending on the song, you may well mean it to be about me, but would then claim that "oh, but I didn't *say* it was about you".

Please, Xaccers, I've been doing e-forums for too long now to be impressed or fooled by that sort of thing.

So rather than ensure that things get done to your standards you decline the chance, oh well, that's your choice I suppose.
Stick with the tried and tested "I don't like it, I can't give any evidence to back up why it would be a bad thing, and I don't see why I should suggest something better" argument.

Oh dear, and this is *another* sort of thing that I am neither impressed nor fooled by and is about as logical as the "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument, but this time it's extended to "if you don't run for office yourself you can't complain"...

No, I cannot give "evidence" to back up why it would be a bad thing, just as those who have argued it favour of it have not given "evidence" for why it would be a *good* thing.

I have opinions on the subject and I have given related examples to back up my position. I have suggested something better in that it would be an improvement for the Government to remove red tape and form filling duties from the Police to let them get on with their jobs.

All of that can be seen from my previous posts and now, as with Pierre, I see little purpose in continuing this discussion further.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Now substitute that vision for one of the Police needing to carry out checks but being unable to because everyone's looking at the backgrounds of people working or wanting to work with children.

A little history Graham, because the goverment knew they would be intorducing the intense checks on people's backgrounds, they took the responsibility for that away from the police and created a specific department for it.
The police still carry out their own checks as they always have, but now have *more* resources as they no longer deal with employment checks.
So, exactly how is that reducing police resources?

Originally Posted by Graham

You thought incorrectly.

Just going on to a new paragraph doesn't mean you're changing the subject.

See?

But talking about something which wasn't mentioned by you does tend to suggest a change in subject.

Elephants like buns

Excuse me but is there any need for the scoring of cheap shots and almost name calling.If you have got to this point perhaps you need to call it a day.

I don't want to get the thread closed but if you continue.....

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Excuse me but is there any need for the scoring of cheap shots and almost name calling.If you have got to this point perhaps you need to call it a day.

I don't want to get the thread closed but if you continue.....

Possible pot and kettle situation (hey, I'm less than perfect OK ), but I agree. This thread had at one point been interesting in that there were opposing viewpoints being argued with reason and intelligence. Now that is not the case. Can we either posit sensible, reasoned arguments or shut up shop?

[Xaccers]

http://www.conservatives.com/getfile.../1664&type=pdf