It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the police and crime commissioner be politically affiliated ?

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Some people are still struggling to find cause to support the argument that he/she/it should .

But it's definitely a good idea .

Let's take a look at what the job involves , on a local level


The Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner is the police and crime commissioner, an elected official tasked with setting out the way crime is tackled by Hampshire Police in the English County of Hampshire. The post was created in November 2012, following an election held on 15 November 2012, and replaced the Hampshire Police Authority. The current incumbent is Michael Lane, who represents the Conservative Party.


It appears he is the direct overseer of these public servants


Senior Management Team The senior team, each of whom is a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is as follows: Chief Constable (CC): Olivia Pinkney Deputy Chief Constable (DCC): Sara Glen Assistant Chief Constable (ACC) Joint Operations: David Hardcastle (Shared appointment with Thames Valley Police) Assistant Chief Constable (ACC): Scott Chilton Temporary Assistant Chief Constable (ACC): Ben Snuggs Special Constabulary Chief Officer: Tom Haye[5] The force is overseen by an elected Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) on non-operational matters (i.e. budget and priorities).[6] The current Hampshire PCC is Michael Lane, of the Conservative Party, who was elected in May 2016.[7]


He is himself a public servant , BUT , he is also a servant to The Conservative Party

Now you argue that he is presently well placed to serve the public more efficiently by being affliated across his own political spectrum at least.

He could be friends with someone like Mick Hancock , but he is a liberal democrat , but he would at least know this ex leader of the county council , because he's a liberal democrat


Michael Thomas Hancock, CBE (born 9 July 1946) is a British politician. He was most recently an independent Member of Parliament (MP) for Portsmouth South. Hancock formally resigned from the Liberal Democrat whip in early June 2014 until a civil court action brought against him by a female constituent alleging improper conduct was resolved.[2] An out-of-court settlement with the woman, known only as 'Annie', was reached later in June 2014 in which Hancock admitted that he "crossed the line" into inappropriate behaviour.[3] Hancock's resignation was announced on 18 September 2014.[4] He stood as an independent candidate in the 2014 Portsmouth City Council elections and lost his seat in Fratton Ward to UKIP candidate Julie Swan. The Liberal Democrats lost overall control of the council.[5] Hancock was previously the Member of Parliament for Portsmouth South for the SDP following a by-election in 1984 until 1987


The again , he could definitely be associated and therefore, fully in touch with the needs of.. with this ex leader of the county council


Freddie Emery-Wallis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Frederick Alfred John Emery-Wallis (born 11 May 1927) is a British former Conservative Party county councillor for Hampshire from 1973–2001, sometime Lord Mayor of Portsmouth, Leader of Hampshire County Council from 1999–2001, and Deputy Lord Lieutenant for Hampshire.[1] He was elected Lord Mayor of Portsmouth for 1968–69.[2] Emery-Wallis suffered a "spectacular fall from grace" in 2001 after being convicted and gaoled for 9 months for two counts of indecent assault against two boys dating back to the 1960s and 1970s.[3] He was stripped of his CBE to which he had been appointed in 1999 Birthday Honours, and Deputy Lieutenancy as a consequence. Further allegations of indecent assault against a girl were dropped in 2008 due to lack of evidence.[3]


Except that , he's dead now , so of no use presently . Don't forget that wikipedia does sometimes contain nefarious facts

Let's look at what the county council do :


Responsibilities The council is responsible for public services [5] such as: Highway management Waste disposal Children's services (including supporting schools, families and young people) Social care Libraries Discovery Centres Museums Arts provision Country parks Public Health,[6]



Hampshire County Council (HCC) is the county council that governs the majority of the county of Hampshire in England. It provides the upper tier of local government, below which are district councils, and town and parish councils. The county council has 78 elected councillors, and is based in the county town of Winchester. Hampshire County Council is currently controlled by the Conservative Party.


Down in Portsmouth is a very important place to this country , and in regard to Mike Hancock this took place :


Committee membership He was member of both the defence select committee from 1999 to 2011 and has been on the Speaker's panel of chairmen since 1999. He is the vice-chairman of the all party groups on Croatia,[13][14] and Russia.[15][16] He was previously chair of the Russia group, until being succeeded by Labour's Chris Bryant, because he was felt to be too lenient towards Moscow: "We were concerned by Mike Hancock's pro-Putin and pro-Medvedev position. That is why I stood against him and ousted him. His research assistant, who provided secretarial support to the group, was incensed and walked out."[17] Hancock holds various positions on the Council of Europe, including a committee position on the Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the Council of Europe (Monitoring Committee).[18] On 18 October 2011, amidst espionage allegations relating to his aide and mistress Katia Zatuliveter, Hancock resigned from his post on the defence select committee.[19] (See below)


Now the police are involved in defending the public from breaches of national security and terrorism , God Bless Em, so , it logically follows that someone well placed within a political party is then able to use his contacts to further effect an efficient service , perhaps adding , to the public sense of security .
And that every single one of the public and private citizens are safe is highly important to the Police and Crime Commissioner , reference a public document - it's about safety all the way through . He sets out the way the police tackle these matters .

If he knew someone like Freddie Emery-Wallis , and Mike Hancock , if only he was in the same political party, and the other one wasn't dead, he'd know others in the portsmouth district , and they'd all be well placed to stonewall the criminals and terrorists into submission . The Command would be stronger together , and everybody , would be safer together . Entirely strong and stable .

It's a good thing if people know each other well :


Personal life and other activities Hancock has been married to Jacqueline Elliott (also a former member of Portsmouth City Council until losing her seat in the 2014 elections)[5] since 1967, and has a son and a daughter.[7] The couple currently reside in Portchester in the borough of Fareham on the outskirts of Portsmouth.[66] He has been the chairman of the southern region of the NSPCC since 1989 and has been the vice-chairman of Portsmouth Dock since 1992. He was awarded the Commander of the Order of the British Empire in the same year.[7


Then they are best placed to serve and protect . They can trust , through local knowledge and powers , in each other , healing divides and solving social problems with




posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:56 AM
link   
honesty and integrity , giving good reason to for us all to faith in the idea . The job is also open to independents , and the applicants could be from any background .


In January 2014, Hancock was suspended from the Liberal Democrats after the party nationally reviewed the report commissioned by Liberal Democrat run Portsmouth City Council[61] which had found "prima facie evidence of his unwelcome sexual approaches" to his constituent.[62] The report, which has not been officially published, had become available to The Guardian in December 2013.[3] The civil case was scheduled to come to trial in mid-June 2014, but a settlement between the parties emerged on 11 June.[63] A week later, when details of the out of court settlement became public knowledge, Hancock apologised to his constituent (known only under the pseudonym of Annie) via a statement issued by the complainant's solicitors at the High Court in London. Any compensation paid to the complainant was not made publicly known.[64] In part, his statement says: "I understand that you felt degraded. I did not treat you with sufficient respect. I made you feel deeply uncomfortable and discriminated against, and I crossed the line."[3] A psychiatric report on Hancock, who is undergoing treatment at the Priory Hospital in Southampton, confirmed that he was freely able to make such a statement.[3][65] Hancock resigned from the Liberal Democrats in September 2014 before a disciplinary hearing. The news was disclosed in The Independent on 18 September.[4


The good thing about the Records Office is that it records information . So while in charge of social care , everyone is enabled to have information made available . In these days of internet information , we don't know what information is genuine , or not . But when the police are able to trust the people in charge of records , it is surely a bonus to society . Because , wiki sometimes does suffice , but sometimes does not, in a world when , we need to know . Even a simple register of births death and marriages , for example is of invaluable importance . So , when the role in charge of the police has political bias , and henceforth the trust that they are dealing with credible facts from someone like the county council records office , social services of many kinds . It allows the county council to facilitate the police on a whole new level , and that can only be , good and proper.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 06:27 AM
link   
What is this thread even about?

If you can't see how bad the justice system has been perverted in every direction, I don't know what to tell you.

It is a joke, and not a funny one.

Creating a records system removes people from decent employment FOREVER.

It has turned into big business.

You want more politics in law enforcement?

Get real.

We're about at the point of needing to throw the baby out with the bath water instead of this death from a thousands cuts, super-surveillance police state nightmare.







edit on 2 by Mandroid7 because: edited



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

No , its a good thing If the man holding the purse strings is a member of certain groups . Things can only get better . It's reasonably understandable if people like yourself might have a violent reaction to the idea , but chill , it's all good . You're not being lamplighted. Things seem at least to be working fine since 2012 , where if you reference the articles ( by proper names) , this idea was first instituted .
edit on 10-2-2018 by GeneralMayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem

People like myself just had their property taxes jump up 1600 dollars to pay for police who need the funding real bad.

Their 350k boat, 125k trucks aren't enough.

People like me?

No need to get mouthy bud.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

You're perfectly well able to change your mind . You'll be thanked to Keep your tongue in your cheek sir
edit on 10-2-2018 by GeneralMayhem because: non-inclusive language



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem

Yep, mind is not changing.

I'm not sure the resopnse your looking for, but politicizing the police department is a dangerous step you are proposing.

They are supposed to be impartial.

And no, I won't keep my tounge in cheek, this is a message board, not your advertising page.






posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

Thanks for the realistic insight. Its the same way here in the states.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem

Personally I'm against police and crime commissioners full stop , they're just another layer of bureaucracy who cost between 70 to 100 thousand pounds each , money that could better be spent on the front line.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:03 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

But someone has to decide where to allocate resources , who better than one in combined power with both government, local government , and state . You get a self-regulatory snowball effects and power becomes concentrated within a small group. Whereby it can be selectively allocated to maximum effects upon individuals or groups/ networks .

That's only one of the good factors about the idea , which is factually how it works at the moment mandroid
edit on 10-2-2018 by GeneralMayhem because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem

We have sheriffs for the county level that are elected and have party affiliation. But the impact of party stuff in a local sheriff is just about unheard of



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem

Maybe , they just seem like another tier of bureaucracy to me just like regionally elected Mayors , more jobs for the boys.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh . Then someone may have stuck their finger on a hot button . Would a development similar to this over there be seen as regression in terms of the authenticity of authority ? As in , an inappropriate augmentation to party power?

This was initiated in 2012 and the PCC was / is elected . The Force in question here had an 'Indepenent' elected prior to that . They all apparently liked him more .



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem


I am personally against politicians being elected into policing roles, regardless of what those roles are. The simple reason for that is as follows. First, I want policing to be standardised across the board. This is not a large country, and aside from differences between rural, suburban, and urban areas (which are better understood by Chief Constables and the personnel under them, than they ever will be by some jumped up moron with a god complex), the law must be applied and crime fought in precisely the same manner, regardless of geography, namely rigorously, fearlessly, and without the slightest concern for whose toes the police might be treading on in order to do their jobs.

More importantly, the fact is that politicians, arguably more than any other demographic within a given society, cannot be trusted in the least to apply either the instructions of the people who elect them, or indeed the neutrality and non-partisanship that we expect from our police forces. We expect our police to only involve themselves in the lives of people who commit crimes, not to involve themselves in the private business of citizens without probable cause. We expect our police force to arrest those who infringe upon the rights of citizens, which in most cases means members of our own government and our intelligence services. We do NOT expect our police force to be even closer bonded with our government, or the political shape of our nation as a whole.

The police are supposed to be unbiased (although they are not, even now). They are supposed to be impartial, immune to racial bias, unbothered by political affiliation of suspects, absolutely neutral to every single possible polarisation, to have no interest other than to ensure that those who break the law are arrested and tried for doing so, and to ensure the innocent are protected from the predatory nature of the common criminal, and the high placed villain alike, without fear, without appeasement, without any form of bias, either purchased or otherwise. Putting a politician in charge of how things are done and whether they are done at all, does not seem to me to be a way to ensure the quality and neutrality of our police force, rather the opposite.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I think the Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) are a good move, as they provide a clear layer of governance. The fact that some PCCs are also have political affiliations is not really problematic in the great scheme of things, an the role itself is not party-political. About a third PCCs are independent. Because they are elected they can be removed by the electorate if they fail.

I see no difference in the people becoming PCCs with declared political leanings. After all, mayors, councillors, or even Parish councillors can declare political affiliations, and they should do so for transparency.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem

Municipalities have unelected police forces. Any city not wanting to shell out for a force will usually contract the sheriffs for the duty.

The thing is that politically, neighbors in smaller commumities are more like minded, so partisanship wouldnt be minded to begin with.

I see that as a good thing. We should be able to create our own communities.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   

2012: abolition of police authorities in England and Wales In the 2010 British general election campaign, both the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats' manifestos outlined plans, respectively, to replace or reform police authorities, both parties raising concerns about the perceived lack of accountability of police authorities to the communities they served. The Conservatives proposed to replace them with a single elected individual[3] (a 'Police & Crime Commissioner', criticised as a model by some in policing [4]), whilst the Liberal Democrats proposed to introduce direct elections to police authorities, whilst strengthening their powers.[5] Following Royal Assent of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 police authorities were abolished and replaced with directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners[6] on 22 November 2012. Many of the outgoing members of Police Authorities stood for the role of PCC, highlighting their successive experience in the field, and many were elected.


Since there is no wiki page on the former Hampshire Police Authority then it is hard to make a direct comparison . Some of the other benefits to the new arrangement are that Commissioners with affiliation may receive direct instruction from government or party , on who to arrest or not to arrest. If for example , Jeremy Hunt was to require the assistance of the PCC of any friendly jurisdictions , they'd just be a call away . Of course, the integrity of any party member would never be in question , they could just walk away from their membership in peace, should the requirement come to fruition .



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
When it comes to law enforcement, and those that run the show.

Be it at the local, state, or federal levels.

Should be Apolitical.

Not up for debate.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem


Politics as a general rule should stay out of law enforcement. Unfortunately the very act of law enforcement is a political process, only made possible/legitimate by the politicians who make the law. (this wasn't always true, see: common law, law enforcement in the 17/1800's)

So there are arguments both ways. If the LEO in question is going to be conducting investigations/arrests/public business then no they shouldn't be a "political officer" (although personal political leanings are unavoidable). If their job is purely supervisory and their purpose is solely to ensure LE services are following the priorities set forth by the political establishment then yes, I don't see a problem. After all, in the US at least it is the President who ultimately determines federal priorities.

That said, determining priorities is a strategic concept not a tactical one. Politics should not play a daily role in LE, save for determining that overall direction/concerns/priorities. For example, a political officer ensuring the department is focusing on their enforcement priorities (say: corruption, drug dealers, violent crime) is acceptable. A political officer getting involved in a specific case or attempting to influence a specific investigation is not acceptable IMHO.

In the UK/other countries, I have to defer to others with more knowledge because that isn't me. As a general rule, politics should stay out of LE though. That is why there are oversight agencies and entities. As far as a political-purpose sworn officer? No way
edit on 2/10/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: GeneralMayhem



Some of the other benefits to the new arrangement are that Commissioners with affiliation may receive direct instruction from government or party , on who to arrest or not to arrest.


Oh. In that case, absolutely not.

Having a political officer is reminiscent of the Soviet Union, so its no surprise the UK would stumble/sleep walk down that path (they're already a police state, why not turn it into an authoritarian shi###le?

Any system with such blatant political interference can no longer claim legitimacy. Since the people of the UK have already been disarmed, however, there isn't much you can do other than get the hell out of that country before it gets even worse. We will see the rise of another far-left authoritarian government (just like Hitler's regime) in the UK before 2030.

I think it is an embarrassment to the United States to even be associated with the UK given their authoritarian/totalitarian nature
edit on 2/10/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join