Police chief unveils his new strategy (From Herald Series)

For heavens sake. This man is NOT the Police Chief... Ms THORNTON is the Chief Constable. STANSFIELD is merely an (only just) elected (12% ? ) political chairman of the PCC. Whether you like it or not let her get on with running the police force and let him try to get on with his political interference..

Whether we like it or not, we do now have an elected Commissioner, who got as many votes as his rivals put together, and thus truly does have a democratic mandate. I didn't vote for him, but I am a democrat, and accept the outcome of that election without reserve.

One of the reasons advanced for having PCCs was to stop the slide towards increased politicisation on the part of Police Chiefs, who should be getting on with doing what Parliament has defined as their responsibilities, and not trying to set their own political agendas (as the then Sir Ian Blair did in London, and as Sara Thornton has been doing in the Thames Valley, in particular by ignoring whole swathes of violent offences, including offences of sexual violence, up to and including many rapes, which have been dismissed with a simple caution, an outrageous situation, but one which seems to have been covered up by the old Police Authority - of which Brigadier Stansfield was a part).

The other reason was to give the public a greater voice in determining policing priorities. Brigadier Stansfield's attempts to sound out public opinion have been pretty pathetic, to be blunt, but this consultation does now give each of us the opportunity to have our say, and he will be answerable to us if we feel he has not listened, just as the Chief Constable is answerable to him for implementing the plan finally adopted. In the worst case scenario, he has the power to dismiss her, so it is to be hoped she might just for once sit up and pay heed to public opinion about her consistent betrayal of victims of sexual assaults and violent crime for the sake of ticking a few boxes.

This is an expensive experiment, the case for which was poor at best. But if we want to ensure that the vast sums committed are spent to best advantage, then it is up to us to make our views known.

The devil is in the detail, as the old expression goes, and we will need to scrutinise carefully the draft plan. But at first blush, it does seem to generally reflect what the majority of the electorate would wish to see the Police doing a bit more of. Whether he has had the courage to say what it is he wants them to do less of (we live in an era of austerity) remains to be seen. What would not be acceptable would be any attempt to increase the police precept (i.e. the amount taken from council tax to pay for policing). In some parts of the country, PCCs have demanded increases in council tax to pay for their pet schemes (or worse, jobs for their cronies). People across the Thames Valley are already badly squeezed, and simply can't find extra money to pay for extravagant whims.

They clearly want better value for money, an end to the culture of early retirement, a real and demonstrable determination to eradicate the cosy corruption between police officers and their media chums, and genuine efforts to rebuild the lost respect in the integrity of those who are there to protect us, not the corporate interests of media barons and the careers of certain politicians. The doubts engendered by the Plebgate scandal still have to be resolved, but the most disturbing aspect of all is that most people expressed no surprise at the suggestion that there may have been collusion and that certain accounts could have been either cooked up or concerted with others.

As our new PCC has correctly concluded, it does come down to rebuilding trust. If he can do that, then he will go some way to justifying the money this is costing us...

I concur with your sentiments. Don't get me wrong, apart from some as you put it 'box ticking' exercises, I was trying to draw the difference from operational work, as hard as it is under current constraints, and outright political interference.
I retired many years ago, and then one of the 'no-nos' of the job was politics, as also was cronyism, both internal and external.
Perhaps I have been out for so long I can no longer see the the wood for the trees.
I will hold my tongue for the time being, it being early days, to see how it goes, but it does seem that the whole scheme, not just in TVP, but nationwide has stooped to political points scoring.

@Marco00 No, don't hold your tongue! We really do need debate on these matters, and your comments set me off, and may trigger others into responding. We should all have our say!

Motg.
A once oft used expression ' nil bastardo carburundum' springs to mind. You and anyone else can translate this from pidgeon latin how you wish. I am not yet in a state of having all information so will hold my comments and give the holier than thou brigade their chance to become perfect.
Thanks for your input.
Ps. The 'latin quote' is not directed at you.

Thanks, MarcoOO, I certainly didn't take your "Latin" as being directed against me.

I've begun looking through the PCC's strategy, but along the way was struck by the fact that he appears to have failed to answer Question (h) in the "PCC Declaration of Interests" form, and - astonishingly - the witness (who is not otherwise identified) was seemingly happy to sign off a clearly incomplete declaration, which is - however one looks at the situation - a rather worrying state of affairs, especially as the question relates to an interest as tenant or in a firm which is a tenant of land owned by the Thames Valley constabulary...

Brig. Stansfield should be asked to clarify this situation ASAP, and to give a substantive explanation for such an apparently blatant failure to comply with the elementary requirements of public disclosure.

It would seem, unless I am inadvertently missing something essential, that he either deliberately avoided answering the question, or he has demonstrated a deeply worrying lack of attention to 'detail' (if something so fundamental can be so described), and both scenarios therefore appear to call into question his suitability for this extremely important public office. It's difficult to see what other explanation there could be other than either:
i) a highly disturbing unwillingness to provide a full and frank answer,
or
ii) gross negligence.

As for the hapless individual who "nodded this through", s/he should be asked some very searching questions. If s/he is a public servant, then they appear demonstrably not fit to hold office, and in most imaginable circumstances would be expected to either resign forthwith or be sacked for incompetence.

If this was signed off by a friend of Brig. Stansfield as a favour, other questions need to be asked.

It is astonishing that no-one in the force or the responsible oversight body picked this up.

So Mr £85K a year is going to provide a more visible police presence on our streets whilst shutting down a police "station" on our largest estate that has been successful in cutting crime due to a visible police presence. What an IDIOT. Typical Tory Toff, sod the plebs, but lets cut the crime against our rich farmer friends.

I think I must buy myself a bigger wooden spoon whilst I try researching today.
GS - Morning, glad you agree.
MOTG - I am glad you have cottoned on to my 'old boy network' comments re seconding commitments.
See you all later I hope.
Marco