Election of Police and Crime Commissioner

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 5:38 PM..............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!

 

But, that is not how the system really worked hitherto. The Chief Constable was answerable to the Police Authority, whose meetings were public. The Authorities generally had 17 members, nine appointed from elected local councillors (so little changed, apart from the numbers, vis a vis the PCPs), and eight independent members, at least three of whom had to be magistrates (IMO, a sad omission from the PCPs) with the remaining five being appointed by the Authority itself. So, we had the possibility for public scrutiny of the Authority at work, we had elected people involved in the oversight role, and we had the inclusion of magistrates to inject a little insight into how the justice system was working. The only bit I'd quarrel with is the appointed independents.

 

Sensible evolution might, for example, have provided for the five independents to be directly elected to the Authority from within each District or Unitary Council within the force area, at the same time as council elections, but with no party political involvement. That may have required some adjustment to the numbers on any one Authority, but the new PCPs can be up to 20 in number in any case. That would have allowed representation of the views of the political parties (while denying them a majority). The directly elected area members, would have been far better placed to receive, and feed back, public concerns on an area by area basis than the single PCC. I view the magistrates involvement as particularly valuable (for their insights of what was going on in the local courts, in terms of where the trouble makers are, and whether adequate cases are brought against them), and their loss as a significant omission.

 

If this change hangs on the behaviour of a handful of poor Chief Constables over the past 20 or more years, I strongly doubt the record of the new system will prove any better; probably considerably worse, in practise in these areas. Those wrongs took place largely unseen, because they were covered up. I fail to see how PCCs and PCPs, had they existed at the time, could have gained better insights into the goings on when they were being deliberately concealed from scrutiny. The Police Authorities that failed to root out those poor Chief Cons had all the powers of oversight, and dismissal, they needed. I leave to to you to judge whether they were obstructed, or complicit, in exercising their powers.

 

The Authorities were subject to HMIC and Audit Commission inspections, and had powers to appoint, and dismiss, Chief Constables. The new arrangement seems to me to bring little of value at the expense of huge complexity, and confusion of roles. You say "fair and diligent", but do not comment on my criticism, which is the price, in terms of complexity as well as, I suspect, money, at which that will be achieved - if, indeed, it will be achieved.

[CliveH]

But Brian - surely you will agree that even with the old system set out a well as you do - the lack of accountability enabled Chief Constables of some forces to do a bad job and cover it up.

 

It is not a lack of integrity as Robin would like to make out I said. By accusing me of such a statement I believe he seeks to marginalise the valid points made.

 

It is accountability - it has always been about accountability and who the Police is accountable to. If that Police Force had not destroyed the files on the false premise that the Data Protection Act required them to destroy old evidence - those two young girls in Soham Cambridgeshire would still be alive today because that data would have been available to the Headmaster of their school and he would not therefore have given the the job to the Cartaker who murdered them.

 

That is not a lack of integrity - it is a lack of accountability that allows such a mistake to be made.

 

As for my comments on what you say Brian - I can only say one thing without a nit picking and boring analysis of all that you say.

 

And that ONE thing is that the PCC is elected to do the job.

 

I have stated my thoughts on the party politics input - and state again that I would have liked all Party Political candidates to have been banned. That said we probably WOULD have seen a lack of integrity on the part of some by way of their saying they are one thing and being another.

 

So perhaps best to have a free for all and vote Independent.

 

Which seems to be what most voters agreed with.

 

And again - I make the point - the PCC's are voted in to do a specific job.

 

Yes the first vote was a shambles - and i do hope it improves next time and subsequent times - as I am sure it will - as the system settles down, is fine tuned and becomes the norm.

 

Forgive me Brian - but given what has gone on with some Police Forces - are you seriously happy to say that the status quo is ok?

 

I think you should be grateful that it was never any one that you know who was entirely innocent but that got genuinely on the wrong side of the Police "system" such that whatever you did - you were fobbed off with "nothing to see here - move along please!"

 

We NEED elected official oversight.

 

 

[RogerC]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 7:49 PM

 

 We NEED elected official oversight.

 

Having tried to follow this topic with it's to and fro arguments I agree with the comment from Clive above.  However I would like to add that regardless of who is overseen by whom what we really need in all of these positions/bodies is:

 

Integrity.

Honesty.

Morality.

Dignity.

Discipline.

.......... and above all a complete disassociation from 'all' political leanings which will enable those in 'Public Office/Service' to serve the public free of political interference/encumbrances.  The politicisation of the Police through some Chief Constables over recent years is lamentable.  It smacks of self serving interest on their part and has no place in policing. If the interfering political element is eradicated from policing and the list above is taken as their byword then maybe, just maybe some 'Joe Public faith' will be restored.

 

In the meantime..........'Who watches the watchers'?

 

[Dave225]

RogerC - 2012-11-21 9:17 PM

CliveH - 2012-11-21 7:49 PM

 

 We NEED elected official oversight.

 

Having tried to follow this topic with it's to and fro arguments I agree with the comment from Clive above.  However I would like to add that regardless of who is overseen by whom what we really need in all of these positions/bodies is:

 

Integrity.

Honesty.

Morality.

Dignity.

Discipline.

.......... and above all a complete disassociation from 'all' political leanings which will enable those in 'Public Office/Service' to serve the public free of political interference/encumbrances.  The politicisation of the Police through some Chief Constables over recent years is lamentable.  It smacks of self serving interest on their part and has no place in policing. If the interfering political element is eradicated from policing and the list above is taken as their byword then maybe, just maybe some 'Joe Public faith' will be restored.

 

In the meantime..........'Who watches the watchers'?

Possibly the 'rot' started with Ian Blair being put in charge of the Met. He was a footstool to all New Labour's wacky ideas and encouraged all politicisation of the Force, so others copied. Too many Chief Constables devoted far too much time and money to fringe issues such as diversity, penalising motorists, and sucking up to groups that accounted for less than 1% of he population, and in doing so disregarded their main purpose in life, which was to maintain law and order and catch criminals. I hear a number of them are taking retirement rather than actually face questions regarding their performance. As with many things in our current society, failure brings rich rewards.

[CliveH]

Once again Dave - you and I are sitting at virtually opposite ends of the UK and I find myself nodding in full agreement.

[Dave225]

CliveH - 2012-11-22 5:55 PM

 

Once again Dave - you and I are sitting at virtually opposite ends of the UK and I find myself nodding in full agreement.

 

That is just not good enough. We need to get a good old barney going soon, or people will start to talk.

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2012-11-21 7:49 PM........................Forgive me Brian - but given what has gone on with some Police Forces - are you seriously happy to say that the status quo is ok?..........

No, as I thought I had made reasonably clear by suggesting one way in which the Police Authorities might have been modified to be more accountable to the population than they were. There is a wealth of grey between the white of introducing a new monitoring system, and the black of maintaining the status quo.

 

However, it seems you are somewhat confusing accountability, with the power to obtain the evidence of wrongdoing against which to hold someone accountable. The cases you cite (and a few others presently occupying the press etc) seem to have been dogged by deliberate concealment or destruction of records. When that happens, there is absence of evidence. Unearthing who concealed or destroyed what, when, and on whose instructions, is presently taking public and judicial enquiries to tease out, with hundreds or even thousands of victims and witnesses being interviewed. It is all post hoc, in several cases many years post hoc.

 

I accept that you think the PCCs should be able to avert these events by holding a Chief Constable to account, but if he has no way of knowing the Chief Constable is acting as badly as some have done, and the Chief Con stonewalls, what would a PCC actually be able to do that a Police Authority could not do? The Authorities of the day had the powers to hold the Chief Cons to account, but were, willingly or otherwise, stymied. I can't see how this one individual could mount an examination of evidence that is either shredded or locked in a secure store to which only a few individuals have access.

 

The way to prevent such criminality is to be more selective in who becomes a Chief Constable, by looking closely at the promotion process. You need good apples in the first place to eliminate rot, not a more sophisticated system for weeding them out after the damage is done.

[colin]

Well it seems "oop north" the fun and games have started.

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2012/11/21/new-cleveland-police-commissioner-axes-chief-executive-84229-32276011/

 

Cut and pasted from elsewhere.

I've been so busy with the whole McTigue arrest thing that I've almost forgotten to make any reference to the recent PCC election and the forthcoming by-election.

 

Let's start with the PCC election.

 

cllr Barry Coppinger won and now the Labour Party - and more importantly the man who really pulls Coppingers strings - Ray Mallon, are in a position to dictate how Teesside is policed.

 

Dont believe me that Mallon is pulling Coppingers' strings? Just take a look at todays Evening Gazette.

 

Commissar Coppinger has already removed from service the Chief Executive of Cleveland Police and replace him with Ed Chicken.

 

The Gazette are keen to point out that former policeman Mr Chicken was an employee of cllr Coppinger in Communtiy Protection.

 

What it doesn't do is extrapolate that chain of command.

 

Barry Coppinger was executive for Community Protection - employed by Mayor Mallon!

 

These two are both 'Yes-men' for Team Mallon. Another local service stitched up.

 

It appears that Mr Chickens appointment was agreed at a meeting on Sunday 18th November between 5pm and 8.30pm, held at Middlesbrough Municipal Golf Club, of all places.

 

Alleged to be in attendance at that meeting were Commissar Coppinger, Ed Chicken and a 'senior female police officer', rumoured to be acting Chief Constable Jacqui Cheer.

 

All well and good, the three relevant people to the appointment.

 

But there was a rumoured fourth attendee - Ray Mallon!

 

This raises a couple of interesting questions.

 

First, the venue for the meeting. Why the golf club, when Ladgate Lane HQ is right over the road? could it be the lack of CCTV, sign-in procedure and surveillance over at the Muni?

 

Secondly, and more importantly, why was Mallon there? He's supposed to have nothing to do with Cleveland Police.

 

Was he there in the capacity of Mayor of Middlesbrough and, therefore leader of Middlesbrough Council? That is his ONLY official role.

 

If this is the case, where were the Mayor of Hartlepool Stuart Drummond, Leader of Stockton Council Bob Cook and Leader of Redcar and Cleveland Council George Dunning?

 

Were these people also consulted and invited to this clearly clandestine meeting?

 

A few weeks ago, George Dunning was saying what a great candidate Coppinger was. Now George looks is being made to look a complete fool!

 

The concerns for Cleveland Police are plentifold.

 

Earlier this year, Former senior officer Ray Mallon and Police Authority doyen Barry Coppinger were calling for Operation Sacristy, the investigation into former officers and CPA members, to be curtailed.

 

Now, as Operation Sacristy continues, it seems that Coppinger has been given a senior role at the top of Cleveland Police force, and installed his and Mallons Yes-man as the chief executive.

 

What hope for Cleveland Police to move on past the previous corruption with its new commissioner subjugate to a disgraced former senior officer, found guilty of fourteen charges of misconduct?

 

And what do these two men have to hide that they want Sacristy closed down?

 

Will Cleveland Police continue to be fully complaint with the enquiry, or will our new PCC ensure that information is 'approved' before being passed to the investigation team?

 

Same old corrupt councillor, corrupt copper and corrupt force, in my opinion.

 

Mallon is manoeuvring all his little soldiers into place and the final piece of the jigsaw is replacing Sir Stuart Bell, our former absentee MP, with yet another member of Mallons Middlesbrough Mafioso, Andy MacDonald.

 

 

 

Remember a few weeks ago, Mallon was mooting that he might stand, if he didn't think the candidates, particularly the Labour candidate, were of 'sufficient quality to represent the town'?

 

What he REALLY meant was that unless the Labour candidate was another one of his Yes-men, he would stand for election himself.

 

Why wouldn't he? If the new Labour MP was a 'wave-maker', and questioned the way Mallon runs the town (as Bell should have but was too busy enjoying semi-retirement in France), then Mallons game would be blown and his dealings exposed. Better for Ray to stand as a candidate himself and try to save his little empire that way than be exposed.

 

It's no secret that Andy MacDonald was once described by Mallon as his 'best friend'.

 

Another Yes-man that they are now desperate to put in place to totally stitch this town up.

 

There will be no accountability for Middlesbrough Borough Council if MacDonald is elected.

 

And Middlesbrough Labour and Mallon know this.

 

Any other candidate, if they win, will start to question the machinations in our Town Hall, exposing our council and showing who is really responsible for the budget cuts which our Labour-controlled council dogmatically blame on the coalition government.

 

And make no mistake, they ARE desperate to ensure MacDonalds success, too much depends upon it.

 

ALL Labour councillors have been told that they MUST go out and canvas for MacDonald, or risk de-selection at the next local elections. De-selection means being unable to to stand as a Labour councillor, which means they would lose their £6,500 pa allowance.

 

The desperation doesn't end there. Here in the Linthorpe and Tollesby areas, as well as MacDonald himself (and was that cllr Len Junier I saw doorstepping close to the Blue Bell?) I've seen canvassers out wearing 'Scottish Labour' khagouls.

 

Are they really so desperate that they are bringing in reinforcements from north of the border? People should ask themselves what is it that they are so desperate to protect!

 

Middlesbrough desperately needs an MP who will not only give us a voice in Parliament which those in power will listen to, but also one who will hold Labour and MBC to account for their negect of the town and 30 years of failure to move the town forward.

 

Last time out, the Liberal Democrats came second in Middlesbrough. George Selmer has stated that he will hold Labour (and therefore Middlesbrough Council) to account for its decades of neglect. For this reason, I can officially declare that betterMiddlesbrough is supporting Georges campaign.

 

While I still believe that, at local level, Independent councillors will represent the people of the town, while party councillors will always put party before the people, I believe that George offers the best chance to kick-start change in our town by exposing the corruption that pervades our Town Hall.

[CliveH]

Brian Kirby - 2012-11-22 7:30 PM

 

CliveH - 2012-11-21 7:49 PM........................Forgive me Brian - but given what has gone on with some Police Forces - are you seriously happy to say that the status quo is ok?..........

No, as I thought I had made reasonably clear by suggesting one way in which the Police Authorities might have been modified to be more accountable to the population than they were. There is a wealth of grey between the white of introducing a new monitoring system, and the black of maintaining the status quo.

 

However, it seems you are somewhat confusing accountability, with the power to obtain the evidence of wrongdoing against which to hold someone accountable. The cases you cite (and a few others presently occupying the press etc) seem to have been dogged by deliberate concealment or destruction of records. When that happens, there is absence of evidence. Unearthing who concealed or destroyed what, when, and on whose instructions, is presently taking public and judicial enquiries to tease out, with hundreds or even thousands of victims and witnesses being interviewed. It is all post hoc, in several cases many years post hoc.

 

I accept that you think the PCCs should be able to avert these events by holding a Chief Constable to account, but if he has no way of knowing the Chief Constable is acting as badly as some have done, and the Chief Con stonewalls, what would a PCC actually be able to do that a Police Authority could not do? The Authorities of the day had the powers to hold the Chief Cons to account, but were, willingly or otherwise, stymied. I can't see how this one individual could mount an examination of evidence that is either shredded or locked in a secure store to which only a few individuals have access.

 

The way to prevent such criminality is to be more selective in who becomes a Chief Constable, by looking closely at the promotion process. You need good apples in the first place to eliminate rot, not a more sophisticated system for weeding them out after the damage is done.

 

Of course you need the good apples in the first place.

 

But if you think Ian Blair, as an example, had stamped on his forehead "I am going to be a Politically Correct complete to$$er" prior to being promoted to the UK's top Police job, you are far far far more gullible than I have given you credit for Brian.

 

However well suited and qualified an individual is, absolute power can corrupt.

 

Hence the NEED for elected official oversight.

 

Sorry Brian but you keep pecking away at the same old same old.

 

Time to accept that the system has changed - we all, I think, hope that the new system works better than the current system where - as has been demonstrated - a lack of accountability at the top of various Police Forces has lead to some VERY VERY poor decisions and actions!

 

Most people wanted change - it was on both of the coalition parties manifesto to bring in elected accountability - now we have it we have the "old school" bleating on about how the "good old days were better".

 

Sorry - but I am having more than a mild chuckle over that concept!! (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

But I didn't Clive, I just questioned how rosy the new system will, actually, be. You think it will be rosy, I think it will not. Of course we all want it to be, and I shall be happy for my view to be proved wrong. We shall see.

 

As to accepting that the system has changed a) I have no problem with change per se but b) as above, I have serious reservations over the nature of this particular change. So not "the same old same old", just not this particular version of new.

 

In the final analysis, the system has been changed, largely on the basis of some very incomplete, and somewhat inaccurate, explanation by government. But changed it is, so I have no option but to accept it, do I? However, I can still hold an opinion as to its wisdom and workability, and that is what I have been expressing. As I said, we shall see! :-|

[Robinhood]

RogerC - 2012-11-21 9:17 PM

CliveH - 2012-11-21 7:49 PM

 

 We NEED elected official oversight.

 

Having tried to follow this topic with it's to and fro arguments I agree with the comment from Clive above.  However I would like to add that regardless of who is overseen by whom what we really need in all of these positions/bodies is:

 

Integrity.

Honesty.

Morality.

Dignity.

Discipline.

.......... and above all a complete disassociation from 'all' political leanings which will enable those in 'Public Office/Service' to serve the public free of political interference/encumbrances.  The politicisation of the Police through some Chief Constables over recent years is lamentable.  It smacks of self serving interest on their part and has no place in policing. If the interfering political element is eradicated from policing and the list above is taken as their byword then maybe, just maybe some 'Joe Public faith' will be restored.

 

In the meantime..........'Who watches the watchers'?

Roger,A well thought out synopsis of your thoughts on the requirements.I can't disagree with your summary of what we need, particularly your 5 "bullets". I simply don't feel that the current changes will bring much improvement about in those areas, whilst at the same time they will cost more money and introduce more conflict into the process. (which is where I entered the debate).The PCCs have little specific responsibility/accountability for, or influence on your 5 points. Any detail that does exist of what their reponsibilities are seems to resolve to:They will aim to cut crime and deliver an effective and efficient police service within the force area. They will do this by: - holding the chief constable to account for the delivery of the force - setting and updating a police and crime plan - setting the force budget and precept - regularly engaging with the public and communities - appointing, and where necessary dismissing, the chief constable....the second two bullets (given what I understand of the requirements, are likely to "stretch" a good few incumbents, and I suspect much of it may end up as/remain the work of the Chief Constable in all but name). It is somewhat more clear where they won't have responsibility/accountability: It will not be for the PCC to tell the professionals how to do their job - the legislation continues to protect the operational independence of the police by making it clear that the chief constables retain direction and control of the forces officers and staff. The operations of the police will not be politicised; who is arrested and how investigations work will not become political decisions.IMO, this is the space where much of your 5 "bullets" lie, and oversight thus remains unchanged, i.e. largely via the existing HMIC and IPCC route(s), nothing much to do with the PCC, and it is therefore moot where any improvement will come from.I think Brian said that such a split of responsibilities/accountabilities will make the PCC and (at least any existing) Chief Constable's jobs almost impossible to do. I agree.In your post, you support elected official oversight, but, at a time when the stock of elected officials elsewhere is close to an all-time low, I can't really see that we can have any confidence in the electorate choosing wisely and/or elected PCCs (as a group, maybe, rather than certain individuals) bringing much improvement. It would appear that much of the electorate may also have come to the same conclusion. You major on "above all a complete disassociation from 'all' political leanings which will enable those in 'Public Office/Service' to serve the public free of political interference/encumbrances". The principle is laudable, the practice is almost impossible to achieve; and any measure would be subjective anyway (one man's "political interference" is another man's "appropriate direction").In any case, the reality of what we now have following the elections is 70+% of the posts being taken by candidates directly supported (and funded) by one of the major political parties. (And I note that questions have also been raised about the allegiances of some of the remaining PCCs who were elected under an "independent" banner.). The change in constitution of the Police and Crime Panel from that pre-existing in the Police Authorities (as discussed earlier in the thread) also appears to me to add to, rather than detract from, the potential political influence.So much for the "disassociation from 'all' political leanings", then.My fears are further compounded by both the difficulties of intepretation and implementation of the role, and (some of) the early actions of the new incumbents.I understand that, whilst the new organisation(s) set up their support and admin regimes, there's been a late realisation that the existing ones of the outgoing Police Authorities will need be maintained in parallel to the nascent PCC/PCP ones for the next two years (at what cost?).There are already examples of what might appear to be political "cronyism" in some rapid appointments by new incumbents. (I see that Colin has posted an example). Remember, these are the people who are also (solely) going to appoint (your hopefully apolitical) Chief Constables.We already appear to have a major bust-up between an existing Chief Constable and a PCC. Now this may be merited and it would appear to that there might be some "history" between the two individuals - but I can't dig much dirt on the Chief Constable. Whatever, because of the way it has been done, there will be no "checks and balances" of the removal (for removal it is) in this particular case, and good Chief Constables aren't two a penny. I also wonder how the CPS are going to line up with any revised policies implemented by the PCCs; if they won't prosecute in line with the (now potentially very varied) policies about to be implemented, we're in for yet another layer of strife. As I've already said, I support the need for some improvement, (and, incidentally, also in the public attitude/behaviour to the police) but this doesn't seem the way to go about it, and already exhibits early symptoms of the potential problems.Let us hope the future doesn't bring more.

[CliveH]

What is it with some people Brain??????????????

 

I never said I want it to be "rosy" - I want it to be better than what we had before. What is it with the pedants that they see the need to "project"?

 

First we had Robin inferring that I doubted the integrity of the Police per se when all I ever suggested was that accountability via an elected official looked like a better idea and from what I have seen of the accountability process the due diligence functionality of the system looks a WHOLE lot better than that which went before! And despite all the [accepted} shambles if a badly time election, I was prepared to get of my "bottom" and go out and vote - unlike some!) and now we have you inferring that I think the new system is "rosy".

 

And all this from simply daring to say that in my view - having officials democratically elected rather than Quangos appointed via the old boys network has, to me - a better chance of success due to the improved accountability.

 

Did you actually READ what I said about how the next election should be better than this?

 

And the fact that I called the election a shambles?

 

But for all that - we now have elected PCC's that are accountable to us. Something we have not had before. And as I have said in a previous post Brian - I doubt that you will ever be able to appreciate this properly Brian if you have never bumped up against the Police system and found it wanting. It did not happen to my family - but to the family of a close friend.

 

And as I say - we NEED elected officials in an oversight capacity.

 

It has now happened Brian.

 

Get over it. :-D

 

Please!

[CliveH]

O goodness - now we have Robin splitting hairs again.

 

Robin you are either deliberately obtuse or just plan....................

 

The PCC's were never going to take over the operational role of the Police. So despite your spin - that conflict is a non-starter.

 

That was never the idea.

 

The idea was always Oversight and Accountability by the Police Force to an ELECTED official..

 

Something that up until this point a Police Chief Constable never had to even think about.

 

Now they do.

 

And that is a very good thing in my view.

 

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-11-22 11:14 PM

 

O goodness - now we have Robin splitting hairs again.

 

Robin you are either deliberately obtuse or just plan....................

 

The PCC's were never join to take over the operational role of the Police.

 

That was never the idea.

 

The idea was always Oversight and Accountability.

 

Something that up until this point a Police Constable never had to even think about.

 

Now they do.

 

And that is a very good thing in my view.

 

 

I don't believe you ever bother to read posts, Clive, or understand arguments, including your own! :-S

 

BTW, the response was to Roger's rather well summarised thoughts, not your random and abusive polemic.

[CliveH]

yeah yeah whatever Robin

 

- but when you say :-

 

 

"It is somewhat more clear where they won't have responsibility/accountability:

 

It will not be for the PCC to tell the professionals how to do their job - the legislation continues to protect the operational independence of the police by making it clear that the chief constables retain direction and control of the forces officers and staff. The operations of the police will not be politicised; who is arrested and how investigations work will not become political decisions.

 

IMO, this is the space where much of your 5 "bullets" lie, and oversight thus remains unchanged, i.e. largely via the existing HMIC and IPCC route(s), nothing much to do with the PCC, and it is therefore moot where any improvement will come from.

 

I think Brian said that such a split of responsibilities/accountabilities will make the PCC and (at least any existing) Chief Constable's jobs almost impossible to do. I agree.

 

.................

 

And I refer specifically to to the last paragraph I cite from you above - that is where you speak from your secondary orifice.

 

Because everything I have read and researched about how the role of the PCC and the Existing role of the Chief Constable dovetail together does NOT add up to that which you try to infer.

 

 

 

 

[Robinhood]

....well, so much for "accountability" etc.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/06/police-commissioners-accused-of-power-grab

 

(other papers are available - carrying the same story)

 

To quote The Who "meet the new boss, same as the old boss!"

 

(but we won't get fooled again - well maybe some off us will!) ;-)

 

 

[CliveH]

How ever could I have guessed that such an article was from the Guardian?

 

It would be funnier if Monbigot got involved!

[Robinhood]

CliveH - 2012-12-07 12:04 PM

 

How ever could I have guessed that such an article was from the Guardian?

 

It would be funnier if Monbigot got involved!

 

.....even I wasn't blaming PCCs for Climate Change! ;-)

 

He didn't write the following stories either:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9728959/Fears-of-cronyism-as-police-commissioners-appoint-deputies.html

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3623569.ece

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2241613/The-new-police-commissioners-appointing-friends-deputies--68-000-year.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

etc. etc.

 

:-S

 

 

[CliveH]

I laugh at how they are just weeks into a breand new role and the press - our wonderful press has made its mind up already!

[colin]

I see in Northamptonshire there is now 4 assistants and 17 staff working for the Commissar, non of these jobs where advertised.

[CliveH]

I see the Attorney General has called for the Hillsborough 96 Coroners report to be overturned citing that the original was flawed and that the Police Cover up in particular rendered the original conclusions unsafe.

 

Perhaps we will get the truth after all.??

 

I think this should underline better than anything the fact that under the "old Police self regulatory system" we were badly served - and some were very badly served indeed.

 

I am appalled as anyone at the death of the Nurse in the Hoax phone call debacle.

 

But Hillsborough saw 96 people killed and the authorities covering up their culpability.

 

They got away with it for 25 years.

 

 

 

 

[Symbol Owner]

Now see this.........................what a shambles! http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/mar/19/low-turnout-police-commissioner-elections

 

Without proper information, the democratic process is stifled -- a majority of potential voters in these elections would have expected to be contacted ( as has been usual in all elections up to now) by means of individual pamphlets produced by the candidates -- as will surely happen in the forthcoming local elections (alongside which, the Police & Crime Commissioner elections should surely have been held).

To rely on computer-generated information was just plain misguided, as it turns out.

 

Perhaps they'll learn...............or perhaps not.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

[nowtelse2do]

Symbol Owner - 2013-03-19 4:24 PM

 

Perhaps they'll learn...............or perhaps not.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

And the best get out phrase used by everyone Colin, is.........................Lessons have been learned.

 

NO THEY HAVE NOT.

 

How many times does that come up? *-)

 

Dave

 

[Symbol Owner]

Police & Crime Commissioners? They really are a bad, bad idea.................

 

here, look at this folks:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/police-crime-commissioners-cost

(particularly CliveH ;-) )

 

Colin.

[RogerC]

It's all well and good saying the budgets for the new Commissioners offices etc have increased....in the case of Hampshire it has gone up by £2m..........BUT who authorises these increases?  Surely if a public office has a set budget it has to stick to it?  That might sound as though I am naive(I'm not) but there has to be some sort of 'oversight' and body that allows these increases.  Maybe it is those who need investigating as well as the new Commissioners expenditure.