Police Commissioner

[mmab9]

So what's your thoughts on the new police commissioners ,voting, low turnouts, did the right one get in in your area in your mind,

I had to go on the internet to find out who to vote for ,we had no leaflets through the doors .
And what I read the wrong person got in ,in Staffs I don't want G4S involved in the police ,and the person that got in wants G4S in and to cut the force down.
I do postal voting so voting was not a problem ,but like I said I had to look up the candidates when the vote papers came though the door .To me it's another wage to find out of money for policing .

 

[DrPhill]

I think the whole process a good illustration of our inadequate 'democracy'. I never go asked if I wanted police comissioners (Actually 'police and crime commissioners', though I am sure there are enough free enterprise crime commissioners already).

Imagine this characature:

Voting slip:

Do you want
(a) A punch in the face
(b) A kick in the groin.

And the result:

25% of the vote (0.0001% of the population) voted for a kick in the groin;75% (0.0003% of the population) voted for a punch in the face. We therefore have a democratic mandate to punch you all in the face. Please line up in an orderly queue.

The police should be politically independent. So should the judiciary. That is part of the protection of (what little remains of) our rights as citizens.

Elections should be void if too few people vote.

There should be an option for 'none of the above', to prevent spurious claims of a 'mandate'. (Exeter University Students Union, despite many idocies typical of the era, had a policy of publishing the number of spoilt votes as if this was a candidate. It certainly deflated the candidtates egos. I think I remember one year when the candidates were of such a calibre that 'spoilt votes' won. No 'mandate' was claimed by the winner.......) .

 

[RogerS]

I saw nothing wrong with the old Police Authority. I get the sense that the vast majority of the population also share this view judging by the low turnout. The clutching at straws by the Govt "it takes time for new elections to get into the mindset of the populus" smacks of desperation. I didn't vote this time. Nor would I vote the next time.

Having said all that I am pleased that West Mercia got an independent ex-policeman.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

The guy who won ours got 4% of the vote. 15% of the electorate voted. If only one person had voted the result would have been legally binding whatever anyone likes to think. The 85% of the electorate that sat on their behinds and didn't vote have shown that they were happy to go along with whomever got in - they weren't going to stop the election by not voting, no matter what they thought. therefore the winner has 89% of the vote. If you didn't vote, don't criticise the candidates - just the whole idea.

 

[stevebuk]

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

 

[Anima]

Warning: Not an angry rant

Don't read this post if you are easily provoked by the vagaries of internet forum etiquette or the fact that written word can sometimes be read in a different way to that which it was written.

I think the whole process a good illustration of our inadequate 'democracy'. I never go asked if I wanted police comissioners.

The police should be politically independent. So should the judiciary. That is part of the protection of (what little remains of) our rights as citizens.
[/quote]

Why do you think we have "inadequate 'democracy' "? We are not consulted about many things, but it doesn't make the system undemocratic. We fairly elect the government we want based on the values and principles they offer. We delegate authority to them to make decisions on our behalf. If we were consulted on everything then nothing would ever get done and the electoral system would be prohibitively expensive.

Your point on police being politically independent is exactly the point. The riots that plagued the nation and the conflict in Libya are two good examples of the point. On a daily (sometimes more often) basis we saw police of various rank and station speculating on TV as to the cause and remedy of discontent. Politics are firmly the responsibility of the government and not a subject that police officials should be engaged in speculation on in an official capacity (clearly they have the freedom to do and believe as they wish in their own time).

During the Libyan conflict David Cameron encountered a similar issue with his defence chiefs speculating on the politics of the operation. His response was to remind them that their job is lead their services and their efforts should be directed downwards through their chain of command and not looking up into government. The defence board was re-arranged and now the service chiefs no longer attend; they are represented by a single military person and the rest of the board is made up of politicians.

The newly appointed police commissioners will not hold warrant cards so cannot arrest persons or in fact carry any of the powers/privileges that a police officer has so there is no danger of some vigilante civilian embarking on an uninformed policing rampage. The point is they will direct the service as to where their efforts and budgetary expenditure should be based on their values and principles (that we vote them in on) as well as political direction from the government. The previous system meant that an unelected police officer promoted through the ranks (at least initially) internally within their own organisation by their peers with no budgetary training and undeclared political allegiances was in charge. If the community didn't like them then tough (some may see similarities with the recent changes in Chinese government). Any debate on the democracy of this issue should start with this.

I find it very hard to believe anyone who says they didn't know about the elections; it has been all over the media for weeks. I for one am very glad that no public money was spent in putting leaflets through doors and simply can't understand any grievance with having to look for information. Five minutes on the internet or picking up your local paper would have been enough.

This really wasn't a rant (I promise) or directed at anyone in particular but moaning about "lack of rights" combined with ignorance of issues born of laziness and reluctance to inform oneself really gets me. I am however more than happy to debate/discuss/argue with anyone with a different opinion especially if its down the pub. :wink:

 

[RogerS]

You raise some good points, Anima. I would take issue with one point, though, and that is this statement

Five minutes on the internet or picking up your local paper would have been enough.

There are many people who do not have computers nor access to the internet. Are they to be disenfranchised?

 

[Anima]

RogerS - Good point and its a problem I have no idea how to solve. I was relatively lucky as my local BBC news service had the separate candidates on it in a sort of fireside chat event for a couple of mins.

I think its worth mentioning that I'm not completely sold on the idea myself. It will be interesting to see if policing becomes more open as the candidates will be regularly up for election so will be forced to discuss, answer to decisions they make and be judged for it publicly.

I like the idea of a 'none of them' box on the sheet as I think the stats would be interesting. It would certainly reveal how many people didn't vote because they didn't know and how many didn't because they don't care.

 

[DrPhill]

Warning: Not an angry rant

Don't read this post if you are easily provoked by the vagaries of internet forum etiquette or the fact that written word can sometimes be read in a different way to that which it was written.

Excellent - like the warning.

Why do you think we have "inadequate 'democracy' "? We are not consulted about many things, but it doesn't make the system undemocratic. We fairly elect the government we want based on the values and principles they offer. We delegate authority to them to make decisions on our behalf. If we were consulted on everything then nothing would ever get done and the electoral system would be prohibitively expensive.

There are many reasons that I feel unrepresented democratically, even though the 'police and crime commissioner' election is the first in which I did not vote while eligible to so do.

For example, I live in the constituency of 'Bridgwater and West Somerset'. I was aware that in their 2010 General Election Manifesto the Conservative Party pledged to make "the police accountable to a directly-elected individual who will set policing priorities". I voted against that party, but, as usual, my vote makes no difference. My constituency has a long running, unshakeable Conservative majority. My vote counted for nothing. There are a few places in the country where each individual vote counts, but I do not live in one. Some form of proportional representation might give me the feeling that I had more say. If more people thought that their votes counted for something, more would vote.

Another reason that I am unrepresented is that I am relatively poor in financial terms. Our political parties use money from donors to fund advertising campaigns to sway votes in the 'vulnerable' constituencies. Of course, the donors want something for their money, and all political parties need to play 'the game' if they want to win. It is not for nothing that britain can boast 'some of the best politicians that money can buy'.

Yes, we have a fair bit more democracy than China, and for that I am that I am thankful. But what we have falls far short of real democracy, and is tainted by too much plutocracy. Sometimes I feel that our system is little more than a cosey little charade that allows the parties to take turns at the deep end of the trough.

This may seem too political for this forum. For which I apologise. A bit, at least (but not totally, since I am cheifly objecting to the system that we have, rather than any particular party or individual).

 

[DrPhill]

I like the idea of a 'none of them' box on the sheet as I think the stats would be interesting. It would certainly reveal how many people didn't vote because they didn't know and how many didn't because they don't care.

+1

I remember a frustrating time trying to fill in a questionaire with one of those people that hang around in shopping centres. She wanted to tick the 'dont know' box, for me, but I wanted a 'dont care' box. I was apathetic, not ignorant. I was actually so well informed that it made me apathetic.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I believe it was Tony Benn who said many years ago that there was no point in having a "none of the above" box as "none of the above" would often win.

 

[RogerP]

Gloucestershire PCC vote.
16% turn out - 80,618 people voted
There were 2,115 spoilt ballot papers
The winner (an ex police superintendent and Independent candidate) received 53.1% of the total vote

I voted for the winner

 

[Anima]

On the face of it, an ex-policeman winning the election may seem sensible but it defeats the purpose of creating the post.
I believe the ideal candidate would be a successful business man. Who better to look after money and apportion it appropriately, (broad brush generalisation coming) they also tend to understand 'joe-public' reasonably well as they are masters of separating us from our money. As DrPhil said the biggest ones tend to also have a finger in the political pie as well.

I'm sorry for going back to defence again but its a subject I've recently done some reading on so its the first thing that comes to mind as a comparison. Some of the changes since the last review was the head of equipment procurement is now a successful business man instead of a successful soldier. To me it makes perfect sense and I'm keenly waiting to see how it pans out once the dung pile he inherited is sorted.

Proportional representation is maybe one answer but people are so different no one can truly be "represented". I doubt even the Prime minister's own mother feels entirely happy with government.

I think the PCC election is worth a try at least.

 

[andersonec]

Warning: Not an angry rant


The newly appointed police commissioners will not hold warrant cards so cannot arrest persons or in fact carry any of the powers/privileges that a police officer has so there is no danger of some vigilante civilian embarking on an uninformed policing rampage. The point is they will direct the service as to where their efforts and budgetary expenditure should be based on their values and principles (that we vote them in on) as well as political direction from the government. The previous system meant that an unelected police officer promoted through the ranks (at least initially) internally within their own organisation by their peers with no budgetary training and undeclared political allegiances was in charge. If the community didn't like them then tough (some may see similarities with the recent changes in Chinese government). Any debate on the democracy of this issue should start with this.

No, but he will be deciding which private company will be winning contracts to do police work and that is open to all sorts of 'sweeteners' and how many of those up for election have budgetary training? Lord Presscot???

Warning: Not an angry rant

I find it very hard to believe anyone who says they didn't know about the elections; it has been all over the media for weeks. I for one am very glad that no public money was spent in putting leaflets through doors and simply can't understand any grievance with having to look for information. Five minutes on the internet or picking up your local paper would have been enough.

The Government spent over one hundred million pounds on this venture, do you really think the nominees would spend any of their own money?

Andy

 

[Pond]

I went out to vote so that I could spoil my ballot with:

DO NOT POLITICISE THE POLICE.

The only good thing about the whole process was that "Two Jags" didn't win. The look on his face when the count was announced was great IMO.

Rather than just not voting, we should spoil more ballot papers. That might make them listen more.
Apathy is no answer.

 

[jeffdavies]

What a total and utter waste of resources and public tax payers money!
We didn't need these new commisioners - what the Public need is reassurance
and to feel safe in their homes and on the streets. The money wasted for this farce
and the ridiculous 6 figure wages doled out would have helped pay for an extra visible presence; more Police,
REAL Police not joking PCSO's (without full powers of arrest) on our streets. This is what the Public wants and expects but sadly, it's now apparent to all that it's not going to happen.

Only this week, people from the London area have moved down here locally, to start a new business
because they say it's safer and they are fed up to the back teeth with Gangs and Drugs!

The Politicians, Judges and those high up in power are protected 24 hours a day, they are blinkered and
completely out of touch with reality!

 

[Benchwayze]

Hmmmm! Yes Jeff.

This post is powerful and autocratic. There's no place for it in a Democracy.
As evidenced by one of the 'contestants'. She blatantly announced that if she was elected, she would not allow Police resources to be used to police anything she didn't agree with. (Well she didn't exactly say that, but to mention what she didn't agree with would take this thread off at a tangent.)

Let's put it this way, if an event needs policing in order to ensure the safety of the public, then no one can order Police Officers not to perform their duty. To do so would be an unlawful order.

As for PCSOs.... The nearest they should get to fighting crime is typing up reports, so the REAL Bobbies can get out on the beat. Then the public would have the Police Force it is supposedly entitled to. I can't help but seethe when I see these well-intentioned people on TV, doing a job that a trained Police Officer should be doing. I admire their public spirit, but they are not trained to a sufficient extent and it is really policing on the cheap.

Finally, the more chance there is of being caught, the less likely it is that a crime will be committed. That's the real deterrent. Bobbies on the beat put that factor into the equation.

 

[o0dunk0o]

Bobbies on the beat put that factor into the equation.

As far as I'm aware there has been no study commissioned that has ever proved that Bobbies on the beat prevent crime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17704354

If I was about to commit a crime and saw a beat bobby I'd just wait ten mins commit the crime and run in the opposite direction ;-)

 

[Benchwayze]

Bobbies on the beat put that factor into the equation.

As far as I'm aware there has been no study commissioned that has ever proved that Bobbies on the beat prevent crime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17704354

If I was about to commit a crime and saw a beat bobby I'd just wait ten mins commit the crime and run in the opposite direction ;-)

Straight into the arms of the Bobby on the adjoining beat! :wink: But maybe you would be one of the clever ones ... 8)


Sir Robert Peel dreamt up the idea because street crime was reaching alarming proportions. At the time the Bobby on the beat had a dramatic effect on figures. Suddenly the criminals didn't feel safe. So maybe it doesn't need a study. It's just the sense of feeling safe or feeling under threat. From both sides of the fence.

 

[o0dunk0o]

Straight into the arms of the Bobby on the adjoining beat! :wink: But maybe you would be one of the clever ones ... 8)

So not just more bobbies on the beat but a policeman on every corner? Sounds a little bit like a policed state to me ;-)

Sir Robert Peel dreamt up the idea because street crime was reaching alarming proportions. At the time the Bobby on the beat had a dramatic effect on figures. Suddenly the criminals didn't feel safe. So maybe it doesn't need a study. It's just the sense of feeling safe or feeling under threat. From both sides of the fence.

Think you'll find that most street crime and small scale theft is committed by people with substance abuse problems, all they can think about is where to get there next fix, they don't care about beat bobbies.

Personally I think any commissioner that panders to the "More Bobbies the Beat" crowd won't be doing their job properly.