Elected police chiefs

[User removed 4]

It's a nice political soundbite phrase, but what, in this instance, does 'accountable to the voting public' mean? The public would need, ideally, to be taught on all police operational matters in order to ascertain whether someone is doing a good job.

No they wouldn't , they would see the evidence in their day to day lives.

 

[The Large One]

But then, what are the point of government elections? People vote who don't have a clue about economics, the justice system, education, hospital and so on. There is so much about what MPs have to decide and act on that we don't bother looking into, and rely on soundbites and manifestos.

When it comes to economics, education, health etc, we don't elect the majority of the Chief Executives and Chairmen. The fact that the electorate don't bother with politics and rely on soundbites and spin is a modern social malaise (perhaps it's been there forever). However it is something which can be debated on a ongoing basis with anyone at any time - including how you think the police are doing.

Police operational matters are something entirely different.

By all means debate them, but to have a direct political influence on them when the vast majority don't understand them is not, for me, an intelligent step forward.

 

[User removed 4]

The insanity of such a suggestion is quite astounding. Make the poice answrable to the peanut-crunching crowd and then let's do the same with ther law courts. While being on the surface entirely democratic it will really prove the axiom that you get the government you deserve. You will end up witth police brutality, people going to prispon for the colour of their skin or their faith. If the justice system cannot stay above the burning issues of the average person then there is no hope for society.

This, unfortunately says it all to me.

 

[The Large One]

No they wouldn't , they would see the evidence in their day to day lives.

So how would you therefore define the 'evidence'?

Is it as simple as 'crime is down, Elected Officer X is doing a good job'? If so, what's to say that that is down to the elected official, or maybe down to good rank-and-file community work? Or an improvement in detection techniques? Or a better behaved community? Or crime is down because it's constantly pissing down with rain?

It's not a simple as one thing. Or rather, it shouldn't be.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

You will end up witth police brutality, people going to prispon for the colour of their skin or their faith.

I can't really see that this is necessarily the outcome -what do you base these conclusions on ? Not that I agree with the concept, anyway.

 

[Simster]

DO you HONESTLY think that the police force and senior officers such as Ian Blair weren't politicised under the last government ?

Of course it was. However, far less so than an publicly elected one. My real point is that I don't want a police chief elected by a public who are not trained to understand what makes a good police chief.

 

[User removed 4]

So how would you therefore define the 'evidence'?

Is it as simple as 'crime is down, Elected Officer X is doing a good job'? If so, what's to say that that is down to the elected official, or maybe down to good rank-and-file community work? Or an improvement in detection techniques? Or a better behaved community? Or crime is down because it's constantly pissing down with rain?

It's not a simple as one thing. Or rather, it shouldn't be.

You could say that at any given time though, I'm not particularly in favour nor against the policy, it works in the US because their national psyche is geared towards it, I'm not sure that we would have the wherewithal to effectively implement the policy here.

 

[The Large One]

You could say that at any given time though, I'm not particularly in favour nor against the policy, it works in the US because their national psyche is geared towards it, I'm not sure that we would have the wherewithal to effectively implement the policy here.

And this is what worries me, it's being pushed through without any real consensus.

The last time we had one of these things was a vote on whether various town and cities should have an elected mayor (like London). The majority of places - including Brighton - rejected it.

 

[User removed 4]

Of course it was. However, far less so than an publicly elected one. My real point is that I don't want a police chief elected by a public who are not trained to understand what makes a good police chief.

I also dont want a police chief who gets his job through being more of a social worker than a copper, a la Ian Blair, the public dont need to be trained to recognise what makes a good police chief, you are doing the vast majority of the british public a disservice with that statement.

 

[Simster]

And this is what worries me, it's being pushed through without any real consensus.

The last time we had one of these things was a vote on whether various town and cities should have an elected mayor (like London). The majority of places - including Brighton - rejected it.

Wrongly, in my view. How Brighton could do with an elected mayor to get to grips with its drug problems and transport issues. The London mayorship has been a resounding success with Livingston staking his political life on the congestion charge and Boris coming up with his cycle scheme - and of course London won the Olympics...

 

[Simster]

I also dont want a police chief who gets his job through being more of a social worker than a copper, a la Ian Blair, the public dont need to be trained to recognise what makes a good police chief, you are doing the vast majority of the british public a disservice with that statement.

I don't think I am. How is presenting five police chief names on a ballot paper going to help the British public? I honestly wouldn't have a clue who was the best ROZZER, even if one of them is better at public speaking to get his point of view across to the public. This is a skill required by a politico, not a police chief.

 

[Common as Mook]

Wrongly, in my view. How Brighton could do with an elected mayor to get to grips with its drug problems and transport issues. The London mayorship has been a resounding success with Livingston staking his political life on the congestion charge and Boris coming up with his cycle scheme - and of course London won the Olympics...

If we had a mayoral election in Brighton we would end up with some nut cutlet munching moron like Germaine Greer.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

I am not suggesting the police are perfect but surely this is tinkering that will just further politicise the Police when the public just want them to do their jobs more effectively.

I don't really want precious time and Police resources being spent on election campaigns which will surely distract them from their primary role? Inevitably as elections approach resources will be focused on specific headline grabbing issues that may gain votes rather than address all needs across the Community. What is politically sensitive for police in Hastings may not be a priority in Chichester.

They are already accountable to elected members on a police authority who approve budgets and set priorities taking into account advice from the Chief Constable.

 

[grummitts gloves]

Police cheifs have become too politicised as it is. need to focus more on the policing strategy side.

For once I agree with you. The only one currently standing up to the Politicians is Sir Hugh Orde, widely tipped to be the next boss of the Met. The fact that he has stood up to Cameron has probably scuppered his chances. Appointed Police Chiefs would be a nightmare and worse than it all ready is.

 

[Tooting Gull]

DO you HONESTLY think that the police force and senior officers such as Ian Blair weren't politicised under the last government ?

No, they clearly were even if they shouldn't be. Anyone who thinks the Home Secretary doesn't have a hotline to the Met Commissioner is a naive fool. But anything of value is politicised to some extent, it always will be at the top on things that matter to the public (ie voters).

What I want to know is, if it is considered wrong for voters ignorant of policing methods to have a stake in choosing chiefs of police, why is it considered more acceptable in education, responsible for the teaching of my children, to have parents ignorant of education methods increasingly in a position to meddle with the process.

 

[The Large One]

What I want to know is, if it is considered wrong for voters ignorant of policing methods to have a stake in choosing chiefs of police, why is it considered more acceptable in education, responsible for the teaching of my children, to have parents ignorant of education methods increasingly in a position to meddle with the process.

Are you talking about meddling in education policies, or - to use the parallel from the rest of the thread - parents having the right to elect teachers?

 

[blackprince]

As pointed out in a previous post it is not the police chief that will be elected.

At the heart of the government's proposals is a complete overhaul of the local control of police forces.
There are 43 forces for England and Wales and the government says it won't be merging them.
Instead, it says it wants to strengthen local democratic control by creating Police and Crime Commissioners for each force.
The commissioner will be directly elected and will hold the chief constable to account - meaning they will be able to hire and fire chief constables.
According to the legislation, the commissioner's basic duties will be to publish a "police and crime plan", set local police and crime objectives and the budget. The commissioner will also set the amount of the "precept" that their local electors have to pay, the part of police funding collected through the council tax.
The chief constable will appoint all other officers and will "retain responsibility for the direction and control of the police force".
The police commissioner takes over the responsibilities of the current police authorities - but they will have the additional power of being able to sack a chief constable. Under the current system, chiefs are appointed by the force's police authority in consultation with the Home Office.
Each force in England and Wales outside of London will elect a police commissioner in May 2012. The commissioners will be able to hold office for two terms.
London is being treated differently because the Metropolitan Police Commissioner is Britain's top police officer with national duties including co-ordinating counter-terrorism. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner is appointed directly by the Home Secretary who has to take the view of the Mayor of London into account.

Sussex Police Authority is made up in part of people who are already elected by the people. Nine members are councilors from East and West Sussex County Councils or Brighton & Hove City Council. There are also 8 independent members two of which are currently serving as Magistrates. Surely having a majority of members drawn from the Councils results in a much better representation of local people’s views/wishes than a single individual.

What the government are proposing is not the same as the American method of electing Police Chiefs. Just about every town has its own police force which makes local accountability much more feasible.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Are you talking about meddling in education policies, or - to use the parallel from the rest of the thread - parents having the right to elect teachers?

The most direct parallel is clearly at school level, but really at all levels. The most obviously crass being the 'free schools' set up by wealthy parents, who might have money to buy it but no idea about education itself. Perhaps we should have a 'free police force' for the wealthy, and load everyone else into Croydon.

 

[The Large One]

Cheers for that blackprince.

So what in effect would be happening is a new layer of bureaucracy is created, taking some powers away from the Chief Constable, in order for one elected person (rather than a committee of 17 politically diverse, mostly-elected people) to do the hiring and firing of local Chief Constables.

Still too many holes in that argument.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Sussex Police Authority is made up in part of people who are already elected by the people. Nine members are councilors from East and West Sussex County Councils or Brighton & Hove City Council. There are also 8 independent members two of which are currently serving as Magistrates. Surely having a majority of members drawn from the Councils results in a much better representation of local people's views/wishes than a single individual.

What the government are proposing is not the same as the American method of electing Police Chiefs. Just about every town has its own police force which makes local accountability much more feasible.

Mr Steve Waight is the current Chairman of the Sussex Police Authority

Here's his picture (taken by Roz, incidentally) ...

Steve Waight is a member of West Sussex County Council. An independent financial adviser, he has also been a member of Worthing Borough Council since 1992. He was appointed to the Police Authority in June 2005, became vice-chairman in July 2009 and was appointed Chairman in May 2011.