Election of Police and Crime Commissioner

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-20 2:25 PM

 

As regards your first para Robin - I take it you have not read about what happened at Hillsborough or indeed the actions of the IPCC when investigating deaths in police custody as reported last night on Panorama.

 

But the rest of what you say I am broadly in agreement with.

 

This and the last Government is/are a shambles.

 

But that does not stop even a shambles of a government occasionally doing the right thing.

 

Off the top of my head - one thing the Blair Brown shambles did that was correct was to remove the BoE from Political Influence.

 

I sincerely hope that the introduction of the PCC's is one thing that with the benefit of future hindsight will prove to be (have been) one of those all to few these days "right thing"

 

 

I think you both misunderstand, and make my point for me at the same time.

 

How many layers of "independent" governance do we want/need? (or indeed wish to pay for!).

 

As you feel that the The Independent Police Complaints Commission (or if you wish The "Independent" Police Complaints Commission) doesn't provide/hasn't provided appropriate governance, what confidence can you have that yet another "independent" layer will.

 

....and, though Hillsborough has an historic context, I find it rather difficult to interpret what major difference the existence of a PCC would/will make in the context of the two examples you use.

 

I conjecture it won't be long before the IPCC will be investigating the policies of some of the PCCs (or, if in this new, convoluted system of governance, such duty does not fall on them, then at least the effects of the various police forces implementing those policies).

 

...and of course, the PCC themselves will be being scrutinised and manipulated by a Police and Crime Panel (not looking entirely different to the outgoing Police Authority).

 

In both setting and implementing policy, and holding the relevant person to account, I think we are in for a bit of a bunfight. Frankly, it's a dog's breakfast of an initiative, and it makes me feel strangely sorry for the Chief Constables who will have to work under such a scheme. ;-)

 

Frankly, rather than introducing successively more complex layers of governance, I'd rather work on a simplified structure with clear authority and accountability, and a method of holding something akin to the original concept of a Police Authority (with authority constituted in more than a single person, and representation from various walks of life) more accountable for the delivery and behaviour of its Police Force, than invest such authority in a single, elected PCC, many of whom have achieved office on a small number of votes cast largely on an arbitrary basis.

 

I have a healthy cynicism about the motives of the majority of people who seek elected posts, and an even greater cynisism about those individuals who seek such directly executive posts as a PCC. I suspect our lords and masters in Westminster and Whitehall will like it however, because there will be layer after layer to blame before a whiff of anything gets close to them. ;-)

[CliveH]

The point is Robin that the IPCC is staffed in the main by ex Police. The Panorama programme outlined that it was anything BUT Independent. All part of the old boys network. This latest Panorama programme simply reiterated what has been mooted by many for a considerable time.

 

I would urge you to use your i-player or equivalent to look at this report.

 

what is covered in this programme is why I believe that a level of oversight quite distant from this "old Boys network" is what is required.

 

Considering what some Police officers got up to to protect themselves after Hillsborough - setting up the victims as drunks and deliberately falsifying records, I am staggered that anyone could say that everything is OK and assume that because the IPCC has "Independent" in its title that it actually is.

 

After all the old East Germany was called "Democratic".

 

But then what's in a name :-S

 

 

 

[Robinhood]

....well, of course, I've been advised it doesn't pay to believe anything reported by the BBC. ;-)

 

...but the fact remains that, by law the Commissioners (the top executive layer) in the IPCC cannot have worked in a Police, or Police-related job, a constraint that doesn't apply to PCC incumbents, or any of their retained help (indeed, one of my local candidates was an ex-policeman, a fact that numerous local people apparently saw as being of advantage, rather than an example of "the Old Boys' Network").

 

...and at no point have I described "everything in the garden as lovely". Whilst I don't have any doubt that there are improvements to be made in both the practise and behaviour of policing, I also have no doubt that adding a further layer of complexity supposedly overseeing this is going to be poor value for money, and is unlikely to address the issues you've raised, amongst others.

 

Edit : typo

[Guest pelmetman]

Robinhood - 2012-11-20 3:29 PM

 

I have a healthy cynicism about the motives of the majority of people who seek elected posts, and an even greater cynisism about those individuals who seek such directly executive posts as a PCC. I suspect our lords and masters in Westminster and Whitehall will like it however, because there will be layer after layer to blame before a whiff of anything gets close to them. ;-)

 

You old cynic you :D :D

[Brian Kirby]

Curioser and curioser! My abject failure to pay any attention to this proposal resulted in me being completely unaware of these Police and Crime Panels. From the description of their make up, it seems the membership of many will be larger than (though it seems less well constituted than) the defunct Police Authorities.

 

Among their duties, I learn, they will be responsible for:

 

"holding confirmation hearings for important staff (deputy PCC, chief executive, chief finance officer). The panel will not be able to refuse appointments but can make recommendations to the PCC"

 

When did anyone mention a deputy PCC, his chief executive, and chief finance officer?

 

They will also have oversight of this much vaunted power of the PCCs to dismiss, and appoint, Chief Constables. If the PCCs are the answer to all our prayers, why this power?

 

Seeing what the PCP will be responsible for, is now making me feel rather sorry for the PCCs, as well as the Chief Constables. :-) Anyone who was knowingly prepared to take on the PCC role, should be instantly disbarred on grounds of mental insufficiency!

 

This is not workable, it is simply a tower of Babel: a grotesque and endless corridor of smoked mirrors and talking shops, in which no-one will have the time to do their job, as each layer scrutinises the activities of the other. Who was the author of this labyrinthine policy, Franz Kafka?

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2012-11-20 6:53 PM

 

This is not workable, it is simply a tower of Babel: a grotesque and endless corridor of smoked mirrors and talking shops, in which no-one will have the time to do their job, as each layer scrutinises the activities of the other. Who was the author of this labyrinthine policy, Franz Kafka?

 

.....maybe you are beginning to perceive another reason why the Government didn't seem to be very "interactive" in publishing the detail of their policy.

 

In many ways, I suspect the concentric and overlapping levels of "governance" will lead to even more attempts at obfuscation, rather than less.

 

I foresee internecine warfare. :-|

[CliveH]

Robinhood - 2012-11-20 6:05 PM

 

....well, of course, I've been advised it doesn't pay to believe anything reported by the BBC. ;-)

 

...but the fact remains that, by law the Commissioners (the top executive layer) in the IPCC cannot have worked in a Police, or Police-related job, a constraint that doesn't apply to PCC incumbents, or any of their retained help (indeed, one of my local candidates was an ex-policeman, a fact that numerous local people apparently saw as being of advantage, rather than an example of "the Old Boys' Network").

 

...and at no point have I described "everything in the garden as lovely". Whilst I don't have any doubt that there are improvements to be made in both the practise and behaviour of policing, I also have no doubt that adding a further layer of complexity supposedly overseeing this is going to be poor value for money, and is unlikely to address the issues you've raised, amongst others.

 

Edit : typo

 

So you suggest doing nothing - leave as is Robin?

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-20 8:18 PM

 

Robinhood - 2012-11-20 6:05 PM

 

....well, of course, I've been advised it doesn't pay to believe anything reported by the BBC. ;-)

 

...but the fact remains that, by law the Commissioners (the top executive layer) in the IPCC cannot have worked in a Police, or Police-related job, a constraint that doesn't apply to PCC incumbents, or any of their retained help (indeed, one of my local candidates was an ex-policeman, a fact that numerous local people apparently saw as being of advantage, rather than an example of "the Old Boys' Network").

 

...and at no point have I described "everything in the garden as lovely". Whilst I don't have any doubt that there are improvements to be made in both the practise and behaviour of policing, I also have no doubt that adding a further layer of complexity supposedly overseeing this is going to be poor value for money, and is unlikely to address the issues you've raised, amongst others.

 

Edit : typo

 

So you suggest doing nothing - leave as is Robin?

 

I'd suggest you read my previous post(s). :-S

[CliveH]

I have - and i would still ask if you think we should have left the situation as was?

 

You explain what needs to be done - but not how - and certainly no comparison with what the brief of the new PCC's are.

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 8:51 AM

 

I have - and i would still ask if you think we should have left the situation as was?

 

You explain what needs to be done - but not how - and certainly no comparison with what the brief of the new PCC's are.

 

....but I had/have already answered your question Clive (which you seem to acknowledge in the above). You've simply now added a further one!

 

I have some significant knowledge and experience of reorganisation and governance systems, which qualifies me to recognise duplication, expense, Kafka-ism (to quote BK) and internecine unworkability.

 

All the above are apparent in the PCC/PCP proposals.

 

I have only limited experience of the internal workings of Police Forces, and wouldn't presume to go into any more detail than I have already, lest I exhibit my ignorance.

 

I will say, however, that I am a strong believer in "evolution, not revolution", something that has already been raised on this thread. In my experience, it is generally easier to identify the shortcomings in existing process, and "tweak" those, than to implement a completely new process, and thent try to identify and "tweak" the many new shortcomings that arise. If the existing processes are OK, but the people deficient, then invoke the (admittedly rather twee) process, "change the people, or change the people".

 

As we're asking questions ;-) you seem to have ignored my (admittedly implied) one:

 

....and, though Hillsborough has an historic context, I find it rather difficult to interpret what major difference the existence of a PCC would/will make in the context of the two examples you use.

 

All the descriptions I've seen of the PCCs role focus on "efficiency and effectiveness" of Policing, not on Integrity. Indeed, the wording of their role seems (at least to me) to actually preclude such resposibilities.

 

It appears to me that the closest focus on the latter is via the Chief Constable, and then up through Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary (yet another layer of Governance :-( ). If it's more integrity you want, then maybe that's the leg that needs some examination.

[CliveH]

Interesting points but - I hardly see the input of a Non-Police derived PCC as revolutionary. I fact I would very much see this as a sensible evolution of the concept that the Police should not have total oversight ver their own actions.

 

As for the internal civil waring that you predict - well sorry but I am still chuckling about that (lol) given the open warfare that existed in the Met under Ian Blair because Blair was an overt political animal and a Politically Correct bulls**tter.

 

Dear old Boris got rid of him via a vote of no confidence and the majority of Police in the Met breathed a huge sigh of relief.

 

Now the Mayor of London has the specific role of the PCC.

 

A clear case of evolution in my view. The role of the PCC's simply gives oversight of the Police Force(s)

 

Sorry Robin - but your hand-wringing predictions of doom before bedtime and internal wars do not make sense.

[Robinhood]

....well we shall have to wait and see on the outcome - and I shall be only too pleased if I am proven wrong, since, if I'm not, we will all be worse off in some way. :-S

 

The potential internecine warfare I refer to was clearly in the Governance layer, rather than the operational (though I have little doubt there will be some overspill).

 

I think, however, you are becoming rather organisationally confused.

 

The recent reorganisation does not simply consist of the appointment of a PCC, it also involves the removal of the existing Police Authorities (who previously held the "independent" oversight role, and by law could not be of a Police background), the constitution of Police and Crime Panels, (which, incidentally, look from their organisational guidelines that they will be somewhat less "independent" in their make-up than the replaced Police Authorities), and a complete re-divvying up of responsibilities and accountabilities - it looks more revolutionary than evolutionary to me!

 

I also lose the plot on your other arguments for change.

 

The Met didn't abolish the role of the Commissioner, and the body under whose auspices Sir Ian Blair was when he resigned and was subsequently replaced was still the Metropolitan Police Authority - which continued to exist until the start of this year, but has now been abolished in parallel with changes elsewhere than the Met.

 

So, your desired removal of Sir Ian (which some with an alternative view might term political interference with the Police) was entirely feasible and possible under the old system; not much necessity for change in that example, then. (I refer you to my previous reference to "change the people or change the people").

 

I also note you've neatly sidestepped any response on how the change is supposed to address the other examples of desired improvement that you've used (and both associated with the integrity of the force(s)).

 

I don't think any of your reasoning so far for this particular change bears close scrutiny, and I remain entirely unconvinced that it is/was a good initiative.

[CliveH]

I take your point re the demise of the Police Authorities - I have not mentioned these before because frankly - they had to go with the evolution of the new PCC's

 

As for your point about the Met not abolishing the role of commissioner - I never said they did!

 

What happened was that Boris gave Blair little choice but to resign given the toadying mess, both operational and political that Ian Blair had set up with Livingstone.

 

And yes - it was political manipulation - no doubt about it.

 

But I happen to think Boris was totally correct to bite that particular bullet. You do make some pretty startling assumptions and then do the old trick of criticising the other party on the basis of the assumptions YOU have made about what they meant or their motivations.

 

The classic in your last post is "So, your desired removal of Sir Ian ......" when I said no such thing - I said i was glad he went and glad Boris did it. But if I desired anything it was that Blair did the job properly and well. As he failed to do either I am glad he went.

 

And as I say - now the Mayor of London has the role of PCC and so can hire and fire if he wishes. No need for that political manipulation - he has the power!!

 

As for sidstepping points - forgive me Robin - but you do seem to want to make some debates a "pissing contest" which I am happy to partake in - but I do wonder at your motivation.

 

You seem rather touchy on being challenged in any way?

 

Anyway - I am not aware that I sidestepped anything. My point has always been that having oversight by a PCC, VOTED for by the public, and able to take the Police management to task, is a better option than what went before.

 

The Police Authorities were not seen to be truly Independent because they consisted of appointed individuals.

 

In summary, the vote for the PCC's was a shambles

 

The next round of the selection process will, I hope be better.

 

The system in place now is better in my view than that which we had due in the main to the Oversight responsibility being placed with an elected official. One that we can all (if we chose) - get of our backsides and vote for.

 

You are welcome to your view that the changes do not bear scrutiny. Time will tell.

 

But one question I would ask of you.

 

I voted after careful consideration of what Candidate would be best placed in that role.

 

Did you vote Robin?

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM

 

I take your point re the demise of the Police Authorities - I have not mentioned these before because frankly - they had to go with the evolution of the new PCC's

 

 

....in a revolutionary, rather than evolutionary change?

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM

 

As for your point about the Met not abolishing the role of commissioner - I never said they did!

 

What happened was that Boris gave Blair little choice but to resign given the toadying mess, both operational and political that Ian Blair had set up with Livingstone.

 

And yes - it was political manipulation - no doubt about it.

 

But I happen to think Boris was totally correct to bite that particular bullet. You do make some pretty startling assumptions and then do the old trick of criticising the other party on the basis of the assumptions YOU have made about what they meant or their motivations.

 

The classic in your last post is "So, your desired removal of Sir Ian ......" when I said no such thing - I said i was glad he went and glad Boris did it. But if I desired anything it was that Blair did the job properly and well. As he failed to do either I am glad he went.

 

 

I'm sorry if I appear to have made assumptions, but I think you are simply arguing semantics. You used an example (compounded by comments in your earlier posts) where you highlighted the "desirability" of being able to take the action against Sir Ian that ultimately was. It still seems acceptable wording to me, and I simply pointed out that this action actually occurred under the previous organisation and process.

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM

 

And as I say - now the Mayor of London has the role of PCC and so can hire and fire if he wishes. No need for that political manipulation - he has the power!!

 

 

.....to make individually and politically motivated changes whilst maquerading as "independent"? (At least previously the process need a majority of 23 people in favour).

 

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM

 

As for sidstepping points - forgive me Robin - but you do seem to want to make some debates a "pissing contest" which I am happy to partake in - but I do wonder at your motivation.

 

 

.....as written, that seems a rather ironic statement to me :-).

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM

 

You seem rather touchy on being challenged in any way?

 

 

I don't feel at all "touchy". This is a topic that will patently invoke different points of view, and the proof of the pudding, will of course, be in the eventual eating.

 

What I have done (I think) is directly challenge, with reasoned arguments, the points you've put forward in support of the change, since (at least IMO) few if any of them are valid.

 

It's called debate. ;-)

 

....I think you, however, you are now beginning to slip over into the personal, so enough of this touch pissing contest from me.

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM

 

Anyway - I am not aware that I sidestepped anything. My point has always been that having oversight by a PCC, VOTED for by the public, and able to take the Police management to task, is a better option than what went before.

 

 

....well I still don't understand how you think the changes are supposed to improve Police integrity, which was at the heart of your examples of why the change is required, when the new organisation holds no responsibility or accountability for this.

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM

 

The Police Authorities were not seen to be truly Independent because they consisted of appointed individuals.

 

In summary, the vote for the PCC's was a shambles

 

The next round of the selection process will, I hope be better.

 

The system in place now is better in my view than that which we had due in the main to the Oversight responsibility being placed with an elected official. One that we can all (if we chose) - get of our backsides and vote for.

 

You are welcome to your view that the changes do not bear scrutiny. Time will tell.

 

But one question I would ask of you.

 

I voted after careful consideration of what Candidate would be best placed in that role.

 

Did you vote Robin?

 

.....and that, of course, (but not in a "touchy" way) is none of your business, and has little to do with the gist of the debate about whether or not the change is an improvement. ;-)

[CliveH]

So I take it that you didn't vote!

 

(lol) (lol)

 

And THERE YOU GO AGAIN!!!

 

making up stuff from your own - dare I say prejudice? - and applying to someone who never stated or thought what you imply they did!

 

You say:-

 

"....well I still don't understand how you think the changes are supposed to improve Police integrity, which was at the heart of your examples of why the change is required, when the new organisation holds no responsibility or accountability for this."

 

I never stated anywhere that i thought the new system would improve Police Integrity. What I dis say was that i believed it would improve Police accountability!

 

It is the fact that the Police were not Accountable to anyone after the debacle of Hillsborough. They do not seen to be accountable to anyone when someone dies in custody either! Nor when a paper seller gets killed by a policeman overreacting.

 

I have no issues with the overall integrity of the Police - and frankly Robin - i take great exception to you spinning my words to try to insinuate that I do.

 

What I do think is required is accountability and better oversight - both of which as i see it will be improved by the new system.

 

And equally frankly - as this "gameplay" of spin seems to be your modus operandi, along with saying that a relevant question is "none of my business" - I find myself ever amazed that you do what you do and expect no-one to correct you on it!

 

It is not as tho i am asking how you voted - simply - given your obvious views on the new system - did you vote?

 

I am happy to say yes - i did.

 

 

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 4:50 PM

 

So I take it that you didn't vote!

 

(lol) (lol)

 

....to quote your own words

 

"You do make some pretty startling assumptions...."

 

...and on considerably less evidence than you accused me of doing so. ;-)

[CliveH]

Yes it is an assumption Robin - but not a startling one!

 

It is a simple question

 

If you decline to answer - others will make an assumption.

 

In contrast you jump to conclusions re my view on the "integrity" of the police when i never indicated or said any such thing.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 3:30 PM.....................And as I say - now the Mayor of London has the role of PCC and so can hire and fire if he wishes. No need for that political manipulation - he has the power!!.............

Sorry to interject chaps, but the above does not quite agree with the definition of the PCP's powers as I read them. I quote:

 

"Panels are being introduced in each force area to examine the actions and decisions of each PCC. These panels will make sure information is available for the public so that they can hold their PCC to account.

 

Panels will support and challenge PCCs when they carry out their functions. They will not replace police authorities and will not have a role in scrutinising the performance of the force (that is the role of the PCC).

 

Panels will focus their attention on important strategic actions and decisions made by the PCC, this will include whether they have:

 

- achieved the aims set out in their police and crime plan and annual report

- considered the priorities of community safety partners

- consulted appropriately with the public and victims

 

Panel powers

 

Panels will have a range of powers to help them carry out their functions and specific responsibilities relating to the police and crime plan and annual report. These include:

 

- making reports and recommendations on these two documents, of which the PCC must take account and respond

- publishing all reports and recommendations that it makes

- hold public meetings to discuss the annual report and to question the PCC

 

Panels can also make reports or recommendations (including vetoing with a two-thirds majority) about the proposals by PCCs on:

 

- the level of the precept (council tax charge for the police)

- appointing a Chief Constable"

 

So, the PCC is not quite so free to hire after all. But, see what comes next:

 

"Other specific powers held by the police and crime panels will include:

 

- asking for a professional view from HM Inspectorate of Constabulary if the PCC is planning to dismiss the chief constable. In cases of dismissal the panel must hold a scrutiny hearing and make a recommendation to the PCC

- appointing an acting PCC if the elected one cannot carry out their role (for health reasons, or following resignation or disqualification)

- holding confirmation hearings for important staff (deputy PCC, chief executive, chief finance officer). The panel will not be able to refuse appointments but can make recommendations to the PCC

- monitoring complaints against the PCC and dealing with non-criminal complaints

- making the PCC (and their staff) attend panel meetings to answer questions

- asking the chief constable to attend any meetings

- making reports and recommendations on any action or decision of the PCC"

 

Which sounds to me a far cry from the "freedom to hire and fire" that has been widely stated.

 

It goes on:

 

"Members of the panel

 

Panels will be made up of at least one elected representative (councillors or elected mayors) from each local authority (unitary, county and district) within the force area and two independent co-optees. There must be at least 10 elected representatives. In areas with fewer than 10 local authorities, each authority will have one member and the rest of the seats will be negotiated between authorities locally.

 

Local authorities will need to put forward, and (in England) appoint members on to the panel. They must ensure it is balanced, as far as possible, according to the geographical and political make-up of the force area and that members have the skills and experience required to function effectively.

 

Once established, with the Home Secretary's permission, panels will be able to co-opt additional members, both elected and independent, up to a panel size of 20.

 

Panels in Wales will be slightly different. Instead of local authority committees, they will be free-standing public bodies, set up and maintained by the Secretary of State, in line with the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. However, we still want Welsh panels to be as locally determined as possible.

 

Councillors will make up the majority of the panel, they answer to the public and are aware of the principles of scrutiny. However, as panels are free-standing organisations in Wales, members will be voluntary public appointments made by the Secretary of State. To make sure that these panels are right for the local area, the Home Secretary will invite local authorities in Wales to take a leading role in setting up the panels."

 

So, you appoint a man to do a job. He is called a Chief Constable. Then, you appoint a man to oversee his activities. He is called a Police and Crime Commissioner. Finally you set up a panel of 8 - 18 assorted councillors - to be appointed by the local authorities within the police area + two (unspecified) independent appointees (means of appointment, and requisite qualifications, unstated) to sit in judgement of the PCC. On top of them is HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, and in effect above them (because ultimately they answer to the Home Secretary), the Home Secretary.

 

And this is supposed to be an improvement?

 

It seems to me an excellent recipe for obfuscation, inaction, endless committees, argument, confusion, buck passing, and hugely increased cost. I'm not in favour of wars, but I sincerely hope they don't decide to re-model the armed forces along similar lines!

 

This must surely have been invented by someone fresh out of university, with a shiny new philosophy or political science degree. It's like the outcome of a student exercise.

 

Like Robin, I'll be relieved to be proved wrong, but I truly don't think it is workable, and I don't think either of the two top jobs are, actually, do-able in the real world. This must be the invention of someone who believes jobs get done if you just hold enough meetings and issue some well written "papers". It reeks of inexperience. It also reeks of a strong desire for the Home Secretary to distance them self as far as possible from that desk where the buck stops - in a parallel universe, it seems to me! Strewth, I had no idea things had sunk so low! :-D

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 5:09 PM

 

Yes it is an assumption Robin - but not a startling one!

 

It is a simple question

 

If you decline to answer - others will make an assumption.

 

In contrast you jump to conclusions re my view on the "integrity" of the police when i never indicated or said any such thing.

 

I give up Clive - the right to remain silent still exists even with the implementation of PCCs. And a person's voting practice (either whether or not they vote, or for whom) is often IMO a very good thing to remain silent on (so I shall continue to do so). So, as I said, no evidence! (but assume away, startlingly!).

 

As for the integrity of the Police, I apologise, I must have misunderstood your intent when you introduced the following words into the early debate:

 

CliveH - 2012-11-20 2:25 PM

 

As regards your first para Robin - I take it you have not read about what happened at Hillsborough or indeed the actions of the IPCC when investigating deaths in police custody as reported last night on Panorama.

 

 

and

 

CliveH - 2012-11-20 5:44 PM

 

Considering what some Police officers got up to to protect themselves after Hillsborough - setting up the victims as drunks and deliberately falsifying records, I am staggered that anyone could say that everything is OK and assume that because the IPCC has "Independent" in its title that it actually is.

 

 

...and the subsequent debate. :-S

 

I apologise abjectly for construing this as questioning Police integrity. B-)

[CliveH]

"So, you appoint a man to do a job. He is called a Chief Constable. Then, you appoint a man to oversee his activities. He is called a Police and Crime Commissioner. Finally you set up a panel of 8 - 18 assorted councillors - to be appointed by the local authorities within the police area + two (unspecified) independent appointees (means of appointment, and requisite qualifications, unstated) to sit in judgement of the PCC. On top of them is HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, and in effect above them (because ultimately they answer to the Home Secretary), the Home Secretary.

 

And this is supposed to be an improvement? "

 

Yes - it is.

 

If the PCC were given too much power that would no doubt be wrong as well!! (lol) (lol)

 

If you look at what we had up until now we had no accountability at all.

 

What we have now is an ELECTED PCC that has enormous powers but where those powers are also accountable.

 

Sorry Brian - I am amazed that you set out above what to me looks like a fair and due diligent oversight function and express amazment that others are not agreeing with you that the old system of an unelected Chief Constable who was free to manipulate God knows what on a whim was somehow better than an elected official 8-)

 

Staggering!

 

 

[CliveH]

Robinhood - 2012-11-21 5:33 PM

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 5:09 PM

 

Yes it is an assumption Robin - but not a startling one!

 

It is a simple question

 

If you decline to answer - others will make an assumption.

 

In contrast you jump to conclusions re my view on the "integrity" of the police when i never indicated or said any such thing.

 

I give up Clive - the right to remain silent still exists even with the implementation of PCCs. And a person's voting practice (either whether or not they vote, or for whom) is often IMO a very good thing to remain silent on (so I shall continue to do so). So, as I said, no evidence! (but assume away, startlingly!).

 

As for the integrity of the Police, I apologise, I must have misunderstood your intent when you introduced the following words into the early debate:

 

CliveH - 2012-11-20 2:25 PM

 

As regards your first para Robin - I take it you have not read about what happened at Hillsborough or indeed the actions of the IPCC when investigating deaths in police custody as reported last night on Panorama.

 

 

and

 

CliveH - 2012-11-20 5:44 PM

 

Considering what some Police officers got up to to protect themselves after Hillsborough - setting up the victims as drunks and deliberately falsifying records, I am staggered that anyone could say that everything is OK and assume that because the IPCC has "Independent" in its title that it actually is.

 

 

...and the subsequent debate. :-S

 

I apologise abjectly for construing this as questioning Police integrity. B-)

 

Apology accepted - tho I doubt you are truly sincere given the Emoticon - but then that is another assumption is it not. (lol)

 

Nothing in the quotes you make above is indicative of "integrity" in my words.

 

If you are going to put words into other peoples mouths - best be aware that the audit trail is a harsh critic.

 

B-) *-)

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 5:44 PM

 

CliveH - 2012-11-20 5:44 PM

 

I apologise abjectly for construing this as questioning Police integrity. B-)

 

Apology accepted - tho I doubt you are truly sincere given the Emoticon - but then that is another assumption is it not. (lol)

 

Nothing in the quotes you make above is indicative of "integrity" in my words.

 

If you are going to put words into other peoples mouths - best be aware that the audit trail is a harsh critic.

 

B-) *-)

 

 

.....so Irony truly is dead then!

 

...and "setting up the victims as drunks and deliberately falsifying records" is prominent in the ethics section of Blackstone's Police Manual.

 

.....nothing indicative of (questioning) Police integrity my *rse. :-D

 

 

....and in this case the assumption was (correctly) based on some evidence.

[CliveH]

And they got away with it because?

 

There was no accountability!

 

But you really do go too far Robin. You accuse me of questioning Police Integrity per se when i have never done so - what i have done is to cite what actually happened in aftermath the Hillsborough disaster by one particular Chief Constable and his immediate minions.

 

My point has always been that it is lack of accountability that drives everything!

 

As for the involvement of your *rse

 

That I do recognise as you regularly talk out of it.

 

 

 

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 6:45 PM

 

But you really do go too far Robin. You accuse me of questioning Police Integrity per se when i have never done so - what i have done is to cite what actually happened in aftermath the Hillsborough disaster by one particular Chief Constable and his immediate minions.

 

 

I think we must have been taught a different version of English at school. :-S

 

And once again Clive, you descend (comme d'habitude) to insult.

 

As for my view on the lack of change of accountability in this area that the changes make, I'd suggest you start again at the beginning.

 

As you say, the audit trail is clear. Enough said by me. Bye!

[CliveH]

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Now that is rich - even for you!!!! The English is much the same - how you spin it is all down to you.

 

"And once again Clive, you descend (comme d'habitude) to insult."

 

When the audit trail clearly shows i was not the one to introduce the dubious notion of your "bottom"

 

Thanks for a good few chuckles Robin

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)