Electing a new Sherriff (aka Police and Crime Commissioner)
Is this whole thing a good idea or not?
In England and Wales we’re about to get to vote for the first time on who gets to be our local area’s Police and Crime Commissioner. True but dull.
It’s a bit like the way they elect county Sheriffs in the US except that this being England we’ve ballsed it up by removing all of the glamour and cool factor and made it boring, bureaucratic and just generally a bit shite.
I usually take my democratic responsibilities seriously, on account of hating everyone equally, but on this occasion I’m struggling to give a rat’s arse.
This feels like a personal moral failing.
I’ll still vote I just won’t know what the feck I’m doing.
Are other people having these problems?
What’s it like in the US? Do people actually care who the Sherriff is?
Does this kind of thing happen in other parts of the world?
What qualities make a good PCC?
Should catching wife beaters be more or less of a priority than catching people driving too fast? Bearing in mind that the police here get some of the money raised in speeding fines back and they can then spend it on other things, like more doughnuts and more speed cameras.
Is stopping people being rude about the gays less or more important than stopping druggies breaking into houses?
I don’t feel as though I know or care enough about the police to make an informed decision on how they spend their money.
On a personal and professional level I have always tried to limit my contact with the police as much as possible.
My choices are:
An independent who was on the last incarnation of the authority that ran the police in this area. He says his priorities include drug dealing, sex crimes, domestic violence, hate crime and anti-social behaviour (the prevention of rather than the commissioning of said offences).
I don’t like him because he sounds like an apparatchik. Although I don’t know enough to make a sound judgement about him.
A Tory. An ex-army officer. He’s big on openness and accountability. Doesn’t say anything meaningful about priorities as far as I can decipher. Probably a smart move.
A Liberal. Also a former member of the Police Authority. Says he wants to cut bureaucracy, do more wife beating and sex crime, more community sentences, more restorative justice...
On a side note it is a proven medical fact that what the Liberals say before elections generally bears no relation whatsoever to what they do afterwards.
A Labourite. Opines that I’m entitled to peace of mind. (I never doubted it.) He doesn’t like ‘the cuts’, seems very agitated about that. Says that he is experienced in leading large public sector organisations. (Apparently that is supposed to be a point in his favour – it really isn’t.)
A UKIPer. This seems a little odd to me because the European Union and whether or not this country leaves it has nada, zip, rien to do with how the police are run. But there you go.
Says he’ll put the victim’s interests before the criminal. Doesn’t like political correctness. He will force the doughnut munchers to walk the streets rather than fill out forms..... and other traditional Tory themes.
Where is none of the above?
Is it a legitimate expression of democratic choice to spoil my ballot paper by drawing male genitalia on it instead of putting crosses in boxes?
Reply With Quote
.
