I think this is a stupid Idea

**Maggy J** · 10-02-2005, 16:29

link

Michael Howard must be mad!!

**Rob** · 10-02-2005, 16:39

Hmm, the idea of elected officials to oversee policing, in some form makes sense. Whether or not the tories way of doing it is right, I don't know.

At present the system requires the Police Authority to appoint a Chief Constable, and to approve that Chief Constables plans for the district (setting budgets, and what not). The problem is the Police Authority is another unelected quango, responsible only, I think to the Home Secretary. Other checks are in place by the HM Police Inspectorate, who check on standards and such like. Again the inspectorate is unelected, often made up of senior police officers.

Why shouldn't communities be able to directly influence the policing priorities for their districts. Safeguards of legal duties and responsibilities for policing as a whole will always exist, just like local authorities can be told off by District Auditors for maladministration. But within the framework of overall responsibility would an elected authority be better able to influence priorities of say anti social behavour and violent crime over say speed cameras?

10-02-2005, 16:49

Yup, not a good idea. But then it's a purely hypothetical scenario as if the Tories are elected I will eat not just my own hat, but Delia Smith's Norwich bobbly, Albert Tatlock's flat- cap, Billy Smart's topper, all the SAS's green berets and every product on display at HatsRus

Damien · 10-02-2005, 17:03

Surely the people dont know about the requirements of the job and shouldnt be allowed to vote for them.

**Maggy J** · 10-02-2005, 17:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Hmm, the idea of elected officials to oversee policing, in some form makes sense. Whether or not the tories way of doing it is right, I don't know.

At present the system requires the Police Authority to appoint a Chief Constable, and to approve that Chief Constables plans for the district (setting budgets, and what not). The problem is the Police Authority is another unelected quango, responsible only, I think to the Home Secretary. Other checks are in place by the HM Police Inspectorate, who check on standards and such like. Again the inspectorate is unelected, often made up of senior police officers.

Why shouldn't communities be able to directly influence the policing priorities for their districts. Safeguards of legal duties and responsibilities for policing as a whole will always exist, just like local authorities can be told off by District Auditors for maladministration. But within the framework of overall responsibility would an elected authority be better able to influence priorities of say anti social behavour and violent crime over say speed cameras?

Have you seen the mismanagement in the US where they elect their own sherriffs and other law authorities?It's a damned mess.Besides we have enough elections without having another one to pay for.

EDIT: I also don't want certain groups to get priorites over other groups just because they have a louder voice either which could certainly be a scenario in a situation like this.

Damien · 10-02-2005, 17:22

It would also mean that people with agendas will be elected. The chances of a BNP officer are quite high. Considering they do get elected in local elections and so forth

**Rob** · 10-02-2005, 17:56

So it comes down to the choice of: should or should not communities be able to influence the local policing priorities.

The issue is one of accountability (the police are not elected - and in my view should not be elected - unlike the USA sherrif systems), yet the authority that manages them are also not elected.

OK so government (or at least the Home Secretary) being elected sets an overview for the policing strategies, and legislation says what the police can and cannot do, and what their duties to the public are in maintaining law and order. But national priorities may not reflect the needs of the more local communities.

Yes power shouldnt be in the hands of a single person, i.e. the tories commissioner, that risks too great a distortion. A larger quorum must exist to safeguard against this. Maybe the policing authority would best be formed through the county level councillors?

punky · 10-02-2005, 18:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Have you seen the mismanagement in the US where they elect their own sherriffs and other law authorities?It's a damned mess.Besides we have enough elections without having another one to pay for.

I can't say I ever heard of all the mismanagement. The good side to it all is if you have two or more candidates for election, you increase competition. Increased competition generally raises the bar, as well as they have to fight to keep their job as well as getting it. Of course the accountability, like if they get up to something you don't like, you have the chance to fire them, not just relying on their superiors to.

Out in the States, most local (county) government officials are elected, like tax inspectors, etc.

People most like it because the voting turnout seems to be fairly high (can't find any stats though). It does mean a lot of voting, but they try and group it all together.

The only downside is the endless bloody campaign signs everywhere. Loads next to each other, but everywhere. Not only does it make the place look a mess, but it does cause a bit of agro. They were lethal during the hurricanes.

10-02-2005, 18:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Michael Howard must be mad!!

No, just desperate for some attention grabbing headlines...

However I agree with you that the idea is totally barking.

There's enough political BS getting in the way of the Police doing their jobs without this sort of thing.

Do we really want a system like they have in America where Sheriff, District Attorneys and Judges etc are elected with the result that they go for "populist" actions and prosecutions to make them look good to the voters and the media, even if what they are doing is *not* serve Justice?

My response is *HELL NO*!!

Justice is supposed to be impartial and unbiased, not based on what looks good to the electorate!
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovedGoalPosts

Hmm, the idea of elected officials to oversee policing, in some form makes sense.

We already have those. They're called MPs!

Quote:

Why shouldn't communities be able to directly influence the policing priorities for their districts.

Communities already can, but those who administer and oversee those policies are not and should not be elected on what looks good in the papers!

We get enough of that nonsense already with the Government artificially skewing Police priorities with all sorts of targets and league tables, the Police should be left alone to do their job of making the streets safer!
__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by punky

Quote:

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Have you seen the mismanagement in the US where they elect their own sherriffs and other law authorities?

I can't say I ever heard of all the mismanagement. The good side to it all is if you have two or more candidates for election, you increase competition. Increased competition generally raises the bar, as well as they have to fight to keep their job

Which means that they go for the policies that play best in the press and the media and if that means some poor sap gets 25 years for stealing a slice of pizza or http://www.facts1.com/general/news.htm#pizza because of that policy, well, "it's what the people voted for, isn't it"???

Xaccers · 10-02-2005, 19:29

I don't remember Howard saying that the elected commisioner would be a party member, can anyone supply the quote where he did?

Incog, go back to Weacock Farm before the police (back when we had a goverment that was actually tough on crime) blitzed the area and sorted things out.
Think of the years where the problems were ignored and the suffering caused by the louts and vandals.
Now imagine if there was a commisioner who would be acting as the voice of the people to the ear of the cheif Constable advising him of the community's concerns.
The commissioner would be able to advise the cheif constable of what people in that community want done.
Now the Cheif Constable will be able to decide what his forces do, just as he can now. In fact all that is happening is an unknown police authority is being replaced by a known and easily contactable person.

The commisioner will have no say in sentancing Graham, no idea where you get that idea from.

Lets say you have a police force that's concentrating on going after motorists rather than muggers and burglars, then the commisioner would be in a position to try and change that.

10-02-2005, 19:40

A typical Police Authority (as exampled here by Derbyshire) comprises
7 Councillors representing Derbyshire County Council
2 Councillors representing Derby City Council
3 Members of the Magistrates courts committee
5 Independent Members appointed by the Police Authority, under a process that involves the Home Secretary.

So that's nine people already elected to represent us, three from within the judiciary (which seems sensible) and five to represent the local community. Overall that sounds pretty sensible although I do wonder how those five are appointed and, given the predominance of elected councillors, why their presence is necessary.

So, I stick with Howard is mad as a balloon but wonder if the make up of the Police Authority could not be more transparent and accountable.

10-02-2005, 22:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The commisioner will have no say in sentancing Graham, no idea where you get that idea from.

Lets say you have a police force that's concentrating on going after motorists rather than muggers and burglars, then the commisioner would be in a position to try and change that.

I didn't say they would have say in sentencing but they could, as you yourself pointed out, influence Police priorities based on "what the people want" (translation: what's most likely to get them re-elected).

BBKing · 10-02-2005, 22:46

Awful idea from a clueless fool who won't get in anyway. Policing should be done by policemen, not politicians, in the same way that engineering should be done by engineers, not accountants. Besides, it's hard enough to get people to vote for who should be Prime Minister, let alone getting the population to absorb enough information to make an *informed* choice. Democracy without proper information about the candidates isn't actually democracy, it's just whoever shouts loudest getting all the pie. You might as well have a reality TV show (you could call it Police Academy...).

Taking things to absurd extremes, if you want to employ someone to make the tea you make an informed judgement on their tea making skills, not on whether they look good in a suit or on TV, kiss lots of babies or support the death penalty and birching.

Damien · 10-02-2005, 22:59

This election is already annoying. Have you see the tory posters? they are some of the most simplstic and stupid comments ever. Comments like 'Really, how hard is it to keep a hospital clean?" and "If you put more police on the street they will catch more criminals. its not rocket science is it?" make both issue seems black and white. MRSA is a difficult bug to kill as it is immune to a lot of cleaners and most criminals dont commit crimes near a police man.

**Rob** · 11-02-2005, 00:11

I do not agree with the idea of a single commissioner. That is clearly flawed. I do however strongly believe that unelected quangos are not the way to go.

Police Authorities and indeed many other organisations with no election process get members appointed who will have some sort of agenda, probably one that fits in with the appointees ideals. Even where we have councillors appointed to the committee, it will be those who have viewpoints on the issue at hand. Who is to say the will act without bias?

Whatever happens the Chief Constable will be responsible for ensuring law and order as is his legal duty, and this will apply to all aspects of the law. However within that remit areas can be prioritised.

Amongst other things the Police Authority decides the police budget (there is a specific part of the Council Tax). At present there seems to be no direct way that those paying this tax have any say in it's amount. Many might agree to pay more, if they could be told this will mean a visible community presence? Communities today, may be able to complain to the local police about specific issues and request they prioritise them, but that is a toothless process. Where officials are elected, to the overseeing body, the Chief Constable would have to sit up and take note, of what they say.