Your opinion is unfounded.
Nothing of what you say counters the very real fact that the Home Office have no power over Operational Policing. In fact the evidence contradicts your opinion many times over.
Operational Policing decisions cannot be directly influenced by the Govt. That's all there is to it.
Fabricating this 'Naivety' argument is hogwash and cannot backed up by observable reality or the regulations and legislation under which Police Forces assign their Operational Efforts. This is irrefutably true because otherwise it would be in direct contravention of the prime principle of separation of the Executive and Enforcement.
Absolutely everything I've contributed on this is irrefutable - even the letter from Braverman that is held in the Judiciary Archives (again, used because the Judiciary is strictly independent of both Police and Govt) states categorically that the Home Sec/Home Office have no power or authority to direct the Police to perform specific Operational tasks or specific Operational decisions - and I used this evidence in particular because Braverman was the one who did try to coerce Policing decisions and got into a right bit of bother about it.
My version stacks up with evidence. I am the bringer of facts.
Yet "alternative facts" seem to have taken a real foothold in this society and I find it truly astonishing that when faced with irrefutable evidence the "alternative facts" believers continue to be staunch believers in what is patently not true.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that I am a chief constable.
I only have that position because I have been approved by the Home Office, without their approval I couldn't have even been considered for that appointment.
The Home Office direct exactly what areas of criminality should be my priorities. The funding of my force, and arguably my own position, are dependant on my compliance with their instructions. These are monitored and reported upon by HM Inspectorate, also representatives of the Home Office.
How exactly I comply with these instructions is up to me, so yes I do at least theoretically have tactical independence. This comes with the very important caveat that if what I choose to do is not to the liking of the Home Office, then the sanctions mentioned above can be applied. So how "independent" am I really?
Of course it may well be necessary to move personell, create new departments etc in order to comply with the strategic aims dictated by the Home Office.
Given that resources are finite this will necessarily lead to officers and staff being redirected, and very probably whole departments or units being disbanded so that their staff can be re deployed to meet new priorities.
Whatever they were doing previously, presumably stuff that I as the Chief Constable thought was important, is therefore curtailed, or abandoned altogether in order to comply with the wishes of the Home Office.
This is clearly an operational impact.
So can the Home Secretary directly instruct a Chief Constable to do x y or z, no.
Can they make their life very difficult if they don't, most certainly.
In London it is arguably even worse with the Mayor having hire and fire power over the commissioner.
If that is your view of what constitutes independence, then we will have to differ.
Personally I have long thought the link should be severed completely.
How that could be done is another debate entirely.
