No really he did!
I'm sure he means that increased democratic control of policing would have negative consequences for the rule of law or something like that because his statement as it stands is absurd.
He also says:
"There will be no votes in protecting people from terrorism, from organised crime and from serial rapists that cross the country because they won't be local and they won't get you votes."
The idea that police chiefs are dispassionate experts capable of weighing up crime fighting priroties whereas voters can't would be more plausible if, in the real world, the police weren't doing things like hiring psychic detectives.
6 comments:
He does provide an interesting contrast to the usual narrative.
Normally we are supposed to be an insane mob stirred up into a lynching frenzy by the gutter press. We are easily led and frankly too worried by rare crimes like terrorism, paedophilia and rape. I guess that I could easily get whipped up about organised crime too.
Your link to the BBC report includes this gem-
'Sir Hugh suggested the Conservative plans would be a resigning issue.
"I would not be surprised to see chief officers not want to be part of a system where they can be told how to deliver policing," said Sir Hugh. '
Really ? I wonder how many highly paid 'chief officers' will follow thru on this if they are told, firmly but politely, that their pensions will be frozen, and that payment will be deferred until the resigning officer reaches the age of 65 ?
Or is this Sir Hugh Ordure/ACPO talking complete bollocks again ?
"He does provide an interesting contrast to the usual narrative. "
Yes, the whole "Power of Nightmares" narrative is that the politicians focus too much on terrorism because of the easy popularity it brings.
"Or is this Sir Hugh Ordure/ACPO talking complete bollocks again ?"
To ask the question is to answer it.
Ordure indeed - a pit of it.
Spammer.
Post a Comment