Police and Crime Commissioner absolute farce.
Discussion
Elroy Blue said:
Good cooment on Pprune regarding the Chief of Defence Staff:
The next CDS should be a civvy. We could hold local elections with the political parties each having a contender, Independants would have to place a £5000 deposit. They could have the right to sack the chief of the army, navy or airforce if they wanted and dictate policy, even if they had no mil experiance at all. Best of all we will give them £120 grand and pay for their 'advisors'.
Of course that could never happen to a 'force' could it!
Must dash, off out to spoil a voting slip
The next CDS should be a civvy. We could hold local elections with the political parties each having a contender, Independants would have to place a £5000 deposit. They could have the right to sack the chief of the army, navy or airforce if they wanted and dictate policy, even if they had no mil experiance at all. Best of all we will give them £120 grand and pay for their 'advisors'.
Of course that could never happen to a 'force' could it!
Must dash, off out to spoil a voting slip
Secretary of State for Defence is a civvy already.
Remind me of the Policing qualifications held by past Home Secretaries, or, indeed, Police Authority members? Sooner or later the 'force' has to take orders/policy from the civil power - all that's happening is some fine tuning around how cosy that interface is; and if it reduces the influence of ACPO then that's to the good.
IroningMan said:
Secretary of State for Defence is a civvy already.
Remind me of the Policing qualifications held by past Home Secretaries, or, indeed, Police Authority members? Sooner or later the 'force' has to take orders/policy from the civil power - all that's happening is some fine tuning around how cosy that interface is; and if it reduces the influence of ACPO then that's to the good.
As for home secretaries not having any knowledge of Policing. That has been more than evident over the years.
I like how you describe the most fundamental change to ever hit Policing as 'fine tuning'. That's a good one.
Elroy Blue said:
IroningMan said:
Secretary of State for Defence is a civvy already.
Remind me of the Policing qualifications held by past Home Secretaries, or, indeed, Police Authority members? Sooner or later the 'force' has to take orders/policy from the civil power - all that's happening is some fine tuning around how cosy that interface is; and if it reduces the influence of ACPO then that's to the good.
As for home secretaries not having any knowledge of Policing. That has been more than evident over the years.
I like how you describe the most fundamental change to ever hit Policing as 'fine tuning'. That's a good one.
jonnyb said:
Elroy Blue said:
jonnyb said:
You work FOR the public you protect. It is the public that pays your wage every month.
That public now gets to elect the person directly responsible for policing in their area, rather than just the party that appoints the Home Secretary. How is this a bad thing? If you didn't want to work for a politician then a life in the public sector is not for you, because the public sector is run by politicians elected by the people that pay your wages.
The current Police Authority is typically made up of seventeen members – nine elected members (who are drawn from the local authority) and eight independent members, at least three of whom must be magistrates. Not a perfect system, but it stops the abuse of the system by a single PCC who is interested in votes.That public now gets to elect the person directly responsible for policing in their area, rather than just the party that appoints the Home Secretary. How is this a bad thing? If you didn't want to work for a politician then a life in the public sector is not for you, because the public sector is run by politicians elected by the people that pay your wages.
And the cost! It isn’t about 1 individual and their salary AND pension. No mention of their deputy (+salary/pension), the deputy’s deputies, their accommodation, their ‘back office’ support, their expenses, their transport. The cost of this farce could have paid for 3000 Police Officers. Instead, lets slash numbers and make promises that can never be met.
But I, like every other Police Officer, is sick of the whole damned thing. I'll spend my day targeting motorists on your estate if you want. Just don't moan about the sudden influx of drugs into the area or the fact your BMW has been nicked by an out of town crime gang.
As for the cost, its a drop in the ocean compared to the 4bn the Government wasted on a useless computer system for the NHS, or the 15bn we are about to spend on Trident. Hopefully if the PCC model is successful, then costs will be reduced as other management levels are removed.
And as has already been stated the PCC will not be setting police priorities. But yes, if im the victim of anti social behaviour, or my village suffers from boy racers, or other problems that you deem unworthy of your time, I would now expect the police respond to these issues. You may say this will take you away from other tasks, but just like the rest of the country, your going to have to do more for less.
The PCCs with political affiliation will do what their party tells them, regardless of the public's wishes. Independent PCCs will likely be out of their depth and as useless and powerless as the PAs are now, in reality.
Any change will be for the worse - Streaky's corollary to Hutber's Law.
Streaky
I voted but was one of the few.
Interesting mix of systems (we had a council by election as well)
First past the post for council
Preference vote for commissioner.
Voting staff were confused by a process question on the preference ballot. The wording said something like "place a cross by your first preference in the first column and a cross by the second preference in the second column"
I asked if the second preference was mandatory or optional - ie could I just give one preference, no secondary, without spoiling my ballot - and that threw them for a bit... And nowhere in the guidance notes on the boards does it say you can only vote for one, it only talks about 1 and 2...
Interesting mix of systems (we had a council by election as well)
First past the post for council
Preference vote for commissioner.
Voting staff were confused by a process question on the preference ballot. The wording said something like "place a cross by your first preference in the first column and a cross by the second preference in the second column"
I asked if the second preference was mandatory or optional - ie could I just give one preference, no secondary, without spoiling my ballot - and that threw them for a bit... And nowhere in the guidance notes on the boards does it say you can only vote for one, it only talks about 1 and 2...
randlemarcus said:
IroningMan said:
If it's that important then you'd better use your vote sensibly...
We;d all have loved to, but none of the boxes on my slip was "stop this ridiculousness, please"
. I was thinking on my way back from voting that a box along the lines of "none of the above" or maybe "not this" would be good for info even if it's not/can't be acted upon, oddly enough
.With regard to potential turnouts, we went to vote around 5PM, and on 'our' sheet of paper (the one with our names and address on) I saw that the couple next door had voted and, errm, maybe two possibly three others?? Usually around half the names are crossed out by 5PM!
Grenoble said:
I voted but was one of the few.
Interesting mix of systems (we had a council by election as well)
First past the post for council
Preference vote for commissioner.
Voting staff were confused by a process question on the preference ballot. The wording said something like "place a cross by your first preference in the first column and a cross by the second preference in the second column"
I asked if the second preference was mandatory or optional - ie could I just give one preference, no secondary, without spoiling my ballot - and that threw them for a bit... And nowhere in the guidance notes on the boards does it say you can only vote for one, it only talks about 1 and 2...
That is quite suspicious. I particularly wanted to vote for only one candidate, it took me a while to find out that you can vote for just one and the second preference is not required.Interesting mix of systems (we had a council by election as well)
First past the post for council
Preference vote for commissioner.
Voting staff were confused by a process question on the preference ballot. The wording said something like "place a cross by your first preference in the first column and a cross by the second preference in the second column"
I asked if the second preference was mandatory or optional - ie could I just give one preference, no secondary, without spoiling my ballot - and that threw them for a bit... And nowhere in the guidance notes on the boards does it say you can only vote for one, it only talks about 1 and 2...
I wonder why that is, it should have been on the voting slip.
There are reports of less than 0.5% turnout in some Polling Stations.
In the first result of 41 police areas, the Conservative candidate was elected Wiltshire's PCC ahead of Labour after second preference votes were counted. The turnout was 15.8%, of which the new PCC secured less than half ... no mandate at all.
A £75 million pound farce. Money that would have been FAR BETTER spent on the police forces themselves.
I propose that all ballot forms in future contain a "None of the above" candidate.
Streaky
In the first result of 41 police areas, the Conservative candidate was elected Wiltshire's PCC ahead of Labour after second preference votes were counted. The turnout was 15.8%, of which the new PCC secured less than half ... no mandate at all.
A £75 million pound farce. Money that would have been FAR BETTER spent on the police forces themselves.
I propose that all ballot forms in future contain a "None of the above" candidate.
Streaky
Edited by streaky on Friday 16th November 06:59
streaky said:
There are reports of less than 0.5% turnout in some Polling Stations.
In the first result of 41 police areas, the Conservative candidate was elected Wiltshire's PCC ahead of Labour after second preference votes were counted. The turnout was 15.3% ... no mandate at all.
A £75 million pound farce. Money that would have been FAR BETTER spent on the police forces themselves.
I propose that all ballot forms in future contain a "None of the above" candidate.
Streaky
Sign here then please In the first result of 41 police areas, the Conservative candidate was elected Wiltshire's PCC ahead of Labour after second preference votes were counted. The turnout was 15.3% ... no mandate at all.
A £75 million pound farce. Money that would have been FAR BETTER spent on the police forces themselves.
I propose that all ballot forms in future contain a "None of the above" candidate.
Streaky
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/33649
I remember a strike ballot where a little bit over a half of the workers actually voted. Despite the overwhelming vote for a strike, because it amounted to around 30% of the total number of workers the strike was not legitimate as they didn't have a mandate.
Just listening to the policing minister, Green, trying to spin the election. Quite funny really. He's suggesting that as it is new it has put people off.
He's talking about Boris Johnson being well known, suggesting that he's a PCC. He's also suggested that all the candidates tried very hard by putting their details on a website and a freephone number.
The new PCCs have a manadate, according to Green, because no one had suggested that there should be a lower limit to voting.
Absolute farce indeed.
Just listening to the policing minister, Green, trying to spin the election. Quite funny really. He's suggesting that as it is new it has put people off.
He's talking about Boris Johnson being well known, suggesting that he's a PCC. He's also suggested that all the candidates tried very hard by putting their details on a website and a freephone number.
The new PCCs have a manadate, according to Green, because no one had suggested that there should be a lower limit to voting.
Absolute farce indeed.
pitmansboots said:
That is quite suspicious. I particularly wanted to vote for only one candidate, it took me a while to find out that you can vote for just one and the second preference is not required.
I wonder why that is, it should have been on the voting slip.
Phew not me being thick then.I wonder why that is, it should have been on the voting slip.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff