Skip to main content

When it comes to supervising the Police, many heads are better than one

Sir Hugh Orde, the chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), has had a pretty successful career in the Police, handling difficult jobs like the inquiry into the the circumstances of the murder of Stephen Lawrence and ultimately becoming second head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. He is not a man with a political axe to grind.

Therefore, his forceful criticism of Conservative proposals to place local Police forces under the control of new directly elected commissioners should be taken seriously. In recent years, there has been much discussion of the problems of modern policing. The challenges of international terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime are said to require a wholesale reform to the smaller county-based forces that are the backbone of British crime fighting. Leaving aside the fact that the largest crime investigation of recent years- the search for the Lockerbie bombers- was led by the smallest force, that of Dumfries and Galloway, there clearly are questions about how the pooling of expensive resources such as forensics can be done in the most effective way.

Despite this emerging debate around policing, public accountability is not the major problem. Police Forces are already supervised by local Police Authorities which are made up of elected local councillors and independent members who are appointed through public advertisements and at least one of which should be a Magistrate. The role of these Independent Police Authorities is to set the policies and the budget for local forces and ensure that it is followed. The Authority already has the power to hire and fire chief constables.

On the face of it, the Conservative proposal to replace this committee system with directly elected commissioners looks like gimmickry in its purest form. Sir Hugh Orde is right to point out that this commissioner would be a political figure that would not supervise but essentially command the force- and this breaks a fundamental principle that underlies the non-political operations of Policing in the UK.

The Tories say they would "consult" on this proposal, but the fact that they say that they "remain committed" to Commissioners suggests that this will be a pretty one-sided exercise. A real consultation would focus on issues of resources rather than on issues of public accountability. When senior professional Police officers say that they would rather resign rather than operate under a system of commissioners, it is not just minor adjustments to the idea that are needed- it should be sent straight back to the drawing board.

Policing is too important to be subjected to the half thought out and unworkable gimmickry dreamed up by the adolescent back rooms of Conservative think tanks.

Comments

Newmania said…
... public accountability is not the major problem. Police Forces are already supervised by local Police Authorities etc.....

Wrong .The lack of teeth and hopeless asymmetry of information make this a fiction only you believe . It is hardly a surprise that those with vested interests want to take their vast publicly funded pensions slightly early when their gloomy Empires are threatened with daylight
You will find the Public are very much of the opinion that the last people the Police care about is the people who pay for them

I rather surprised see you on the side of fat cat bureaucrats and their predictable whining I would a expect a Liberal to support openness and democracy . If only we could take back those giant pension pots and then see how brace these desk warriors are .The Police have become arrogant self serving and more interested in fiddling figures than turning up at a burglary which they rarely do .

If this was a Liberal measure , which it easily could be , you would be agreeing with me .

Popular posts from this blog

Post Truth and Justice

The past decade has seen the rise of so-called "post truth" politics.  Instead of mere misrepresentation of facts to serve an argument, political figures began to put forward arguments which denied easily provable facts, and then blustered and browbeat those who pointed out the lie.  The political class was able to get away with "post truth" positions because the infrastructure that reported their activity has been suborned directly into the process. In short, the media abandoned long-cherished traditions of objectivity and began a slow slide into undeclared bias and partisanship.  The "fourth estate" was always a key piece of how democratic societies worked, since the press, and later the broadcast media could shape opinion by the way they reported on the political process. As a result there has never been a golden age of objective media, but nevertheless individual reporters acquired better or worse reputations for the quality of their reporting and

We need to talk about UK corruption

After a long hiatus, mostly to do with indolence and partly to do with the general election campaign, I feel compelled to take up the metaphorical pen and make a few comments on where I see the situation of the UK in the aftermath of the "Brexit election". OK, so we lost.  We can blame many reasons, though fundamentally the Conservatives refused to make the mistakes of 2017 and Labour and especially the Liberal Democrats made every mistake that could be made.  Indeed the biggest mistake of all was allowing Johnson to hold the election at all, when another six months would probably have eaten the Conservative Party alive.  It was Jo Swinson's first, but perhaps most critical, mistake to make, and from it came all the others.  The flow of defectors and money persuaded the Liberal Democrat bunker that an election could only be better for the Lib Dems, and as far as votes were concerned, the party did indeed increase its vote by 1.3 million.   BUT, and it really is the bi

Media misdirection

In the small print of the UK budget we find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer (the British Finance Minister) has allocated a further 15 billion Pounds to the funding for the UK track and trace system. This means that the cost of the UK´s track and trace system is now 37 billion Pounds.  That is approximately €43 billion or US$51 billion, which is to say that it is amount of money greater than the national GDP of over 110 countries, or if you prefer, it is roughly the same number as the combined GDP of the 34 smallest economies of the planet.  As at December 2020, 70% of the contracts for the track and trace system were awarded by the Conservative government without a competitive tender being made . The program is overseen by Dido Harding , who is not only a Conservative Life Peer, but the wife of a Conservative MP, John Penrose, and a contemporary of David Cameron and Boris Johnson at Oxford. Many of these untendered contracts have been given to companies that seem to have no notewo