Commissioner unveils his crime plans online (From Swindon Advertiser)

So he has a 'vision', which actually "does not lay out how things are going to be achieved." But wants the public to come up with ideas to reduce crime. And for this he's being paid £70,000 a year.

Here's a vision: Enforce the laws that already exist. No more 'last chances' at the 'last chance saloon'. Bang 'em up. Make the sentence a deterrent, and make the judgement justice instead of a joke.

The draft plan is mix of Tory policy and money wasting initiatives. For example, the idea to join up services with the councils will be a huge waste of time efforts and Monge. They three computer systems can not work together, never designed to, never will. But that won't stop the politicians wasting money on trying. Remember southwest one in Avon, they said it would save millions, ended up costing millions.

Also, the plan has no actual targets, so how can he be held to account.

None of this will matter, or make any difference, until the desperate problem of unduly lenient sentencing has been corrected in our courtrooms.

Multiple repeat offenders who are simply allowed to roam the streets will simply repeat offend.

Criminals know they have absolutely nothing, whatsover, to fear from the judiciary.

The laws already exist to deal with most stuff, but as already suggested they are not enforced or are enforced so weakly there is no deterrent or punishment.

The criminal justice system is fundamentally broken.

Any politically affiliated PCC was going to introduce policies to suit their masters, this would have been the same no matter who it was, unless totally Independent, which is course is an oxymoron.

Law level crime as it is so dismissively described by politicians, is the real blight on decent peoples lives, but in the main goes unchecked, unless of course there is an initiative of the week.

Major crime in the main solves itself, if it's going to be solved, so resources should be concentrated on the low level crime to make the majorities lives more harmonious.

Hmmmf wrote:
So he has a 'vision', which actually "does not lay out how things are going to be achieved." But wants the public to come up with ideas to reduce crime. And for this he's being paid £70,000 a year.

Here's a vision: Enforce the laws that already exist. No more 'last chances' at the 'last chance saloon'. Bang 'em up. Make the sentence a deterrent, and make the judgement justice instead of a joke.

Commissioner = total waste of money that would be better spent on worthwhile policing resources

"which is course is an oxymoron"
?
Law level crime as it is
?
Major crime in the main solves itself
Really-no extra police needed then.

Empty
70k + staff--wonder what the true cost is.

Empty Car Park wrote:

Hmmmf wrote:
So he has a 'vision', which actually "does not lay out how things are going to be achieved." But wants the public to come up with ideas to reduce crime. And for this he's being paid £70,000 a year.

Here's a vision: Enforce the laws that already exist. No more 'last chances' at the 'last chance saloon'. Bang 'em up. Make the sentence a deterrent, and make the judgement justice instead of a joke.

Commissioner = total waste of money that would be better spent on worthwhile policing resources

Two things wrong with your statement:

1. The money this has cost would barely put two additional policemen on the streets for a year. Which would make virtually no difference to anything, except possible generate a bit more paperwork.

2. Extra police are not needed. What IS urgently required is a major rethink on how the judiciary are allowed to enable repeat offenders to continue their crimes. A convict behind bars is a criminal who is unable to burgle, mug, assault, rape and murder.

In Swindon, for example, the crime rate could be halved, overnight, by immediately invoking all suspended sentences for all criminals in the town with more than 3 previous convictions.

The Commissioner knows better than anyone that crime will continue as long as the criminals who commit it are routinely allowed to get away with their crimes and roam freely.

Sadly, the criminal justice system is a business. Criminals are its 'stock'. That's why the system itself ensures there is always a steady supply of them out on the streets committing more crimes.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that if all the criminals are locked up and the crime rate is 5%, people would start to wonder why we are paying such large salaries to judges for doing very little and why we are employing so many policemen. Equally, insurance companies would see their business drop off and the economy itself would suffer as people have less requirement to replace stolen items.

In short, nobody who is employed to stop crime has a very good reason to actually do so.

well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

The CC's draft report has been three months in the coming, a glossy (very glossy and full of consultant and management speak, what is a quartile and does anyone care?) and fairly empty vessel.

What will be the KPIs and how will value for money be judged and by whom?

The CC is, I believe a Magistrate and therefore part of the historical problem. His ilk needs to wise up and enforce already existing laws with meaningful and deterrent sentencing that gives as much dedicated support to victims during and after their tribulations as the perpetrators get automatically. Anything else simply empowers the bullies and allows them to flourish in the case of low level crime and anti social behaviour.

I detect a big fat gravy train here, well it's about time the victims were able to benefit in the same manner as the multi partner agencies, the criminals, the legal eagles, the court service, the magistracy, the judiciary, the police and not forgetting the CPS, I'll bet however there is not much gravy left after that lot have been at the gravy boat first.

I shall watch with some interest how this all unfolds, I suspect nothing meaningful will happen in the near future but he could start by dealing with the now defunct Life Project. Sack those ineffectual gurus and then deal with the remaining feral, non engaging, bubble wrapped, resource hungry, police powerless to deal with 'troubled families' and make sure they are dealt with robustly and removed from the comfort zones where they continue unabated absorbing all those 'benefits' whilst laughing in our faces.
I'll wager he doesn't though.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

And if he doesn't deliver during his four-year term, he'll have made £280,000 for failing. I doubt he'll be too upset when he's 'shown the exit door,' especially since he'll be able to claim it's our fault for not giving him all the answers he's looking for.

Silent Majority wrote:
The CC's draft report has been three months in the coming, a glossy (very glossy and full of consultant and management speak, what is a quartile and does anyone care?) and fairly empty vessel.

What will be the KPIs and how will value for money be judged and by whom?

The CC is, I believe a Magistrate and therefore part of the historical problem. His ilk needs to wise up and enforce already existing laws with meaningful and deterrent sentencing that gives as much dedicated support to victims during and after their tribulations as the perpetrators get automatically. Anything else simply empowers the bullies and allows them to flourish in the case of low level crime and anti social behaviour.

I detect a big fat gravy train here, well it's about time the victims were able to benefit in the same manner as the multi partner agencies, the criminals, the legal eagles, the court service, the magistracy, the judiciary, the police and not forgetting the CPS, I'll bet however there is not much gravy left after that lot have been at the gravy boat first.

I shall watch with some interest how this all unfolds, I suspect nothing meaningful will happen in the near future but he could start by dealing with the now defunct Life Project. Sack those ineffectual gurus and then deal with the remaining feral, non engaging, bubble wrapped, resource hungry, police powerless to deal with 'troubled families' and make sure they are dealt with robustly and removed from the comfort zones where they continue unabated absorbing all those 'benefits' whilst laughing in our faces.
I'll wager he doesn't though.

An excellent post.

The CC's draft report has been three months in the coming, a glossy (very glossy and full of consultant and management speak, what is a quartile and does anyone care?) and fairly empty vessel.

What will be the KPIs and how will value for money be judged and by whom?

I agree with Silent Majority

I detect a big fat gravy train here, well it's about time the victims were able to benefit in the same manner as the multi partner agencies, the criminals, the legal eagles, the court service, the magistracy, the judiciary, the police and not forgetting the CPS, I'll bet however there is not much gravy left after that lot have been at the gravy boat first.

I think you hit the nail on the head there

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

He has absolute NO control, or say, in judicial behaviour and sentencing.

Therefore, we can already confidently predict that he will achieve very little.

He could show supernatural powers of influence, performance and tactics and manage to have every single criminal in Swindon arrested for every single crime they commit, but as long as magistrates and judges continue to let those convicted criminals walk free from court, it means nothing and crime will continue.

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

And if he doesn't deliver during his four-year term, he'll have made £280,000 for failing. I doubt he'll be too upset when he's 'shown the exit door,' especially since he'll be able to claim it's our fault for not giving him all the answers he's looking for.

The Prime Minister gets £600K for doing exactly that.......

There's far worse posts than that one to be removed, me old mate!

I make no direct invitation to anyone if you can read the post without laughing ... sad ain't it?

Hmmm, haven't seen any reply yet from Angus, who is firmly seated in the first class carriage of the gravy train leaving November 12 and arriving October 16, The question is still: Will the victims be able to squeeze in there too before the wheels come off?

Over to you.

Morsey wrote:
There's far worse posts than that one to be removed, me old mate!

I make no direct invitation to anyone if you can read the post without laughing ... sad ain't it?

Agreed. A.Baron-Cohen is being melodramatic. Your post contained no 'incitement'.

It's OK everyone our resident expert on everything has told us all how to solve Swindon's problems.

Can't understand why he doesn't stand as a Councillor, Magistrate or PCC after all he tells us he knows to solution to everything.

As for the PCC, yes he can be removed, but as has been said a total waste of money.

There is a large percentage of repeat convicts who will never change, don't want to change and who probably cannot change.

Unfortunately, and despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary over many decades, our misguided system still insists / pretends that their 'rehabilitation' programmes actually work.

The Justice Department's own official figures state that only 6% of prisoners had no previous record. That means 94% of people in prison have been convicted of previous crimes.

Also, I would urge everyone with an interest to read the Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR) survey, which essentially

Prisoners’ criminal histories were associated with re-offending: 90% of the prolific offenders had re-offended within the two years after release from prison.

All that really highlights is that the other 10% managed to evade arrest and conviction for their subsequent crimes.

Their conclusion?

These results show that prisoners tend to have long and complicated criminal histories, and that offenders reaching prison with no previous convictions are in the minority.

SPCR prisoners were likely to re-offend once released from prison, and those with more serious criminal histories were more likely to commit a proven re-offence following release than those without.

In fact, the figures actually show 54% had committed at least one proven re-offence within one year after release from prison and 68% had committed at least one proven re-offence within two years of release.<

This is the Ministry of Justice's OWN research, and yet the government, justice system and the judiciary not only ignore the facts but act as if the opposite is true.

Why we continue to not only put up with this nonsense, but also to FUND it, is quite beyond rational thinking.

A total waste of money/resources

The effort and money of setting up this political position is just a waste.

A drain on the police force and public expenditure

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

And if he doesn't deliver during his four-year term, he'll have made £280,000 for failing. I doubt he'll be too upset when he's 'shown the exit door,' especially since he'll be able to claim it's our fault for not giving him all the answers he's looking for.

The Prime Minister gets £600K for doing exactly that.......

Patently absurd, and not even mildly amusing. Are you seriously attempting to compare the leader of this country's Government to some powerless local carpet-bagger?

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

And if he doesn't deliver during his four-year term, he'll have made £280,000 for failing. I doubt he'll be too upset when he's 'shown the exit door,' especially since he'll be able to claim it's our fault for not giving him all the answers he's looking for.

The Prime Minister gets £600K for doing exactly that.......

Patently absurd, and not even mildly amusing. Are you seriously attempting to compare the leader of this country's Government to some powerless local carpet-bagger?

The PCC is directly elected and holds a mandate from the public....
The Prime Minister has not been elected in his position but nominated by a political party that is not even holding a Parliamentaty majority....
I will let you draw your own conclusion on the state of Democracy and Politics.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

And if he doesn't deliver during his four-year term, he'll have made £280,000 for failing. I doubt he'll be too upset when he's 'shown the exit door,' especially since he'll be able to claim it's our fault for not giving him all the answers he's looking for.

The Prime Minister gets £600K for doing exactly that.......

Patently absurd, and not even mildly amusing. Are you seriously attempting to compare the leader of this country's Government to some powerless local carpet-bagger?

The PCC is directly elected and holds a mandate from the public....
The Prime Minister has not been elected in his position but nominated by a political party that is not even holding a Parliamentaty majority....
I will let you draw your own conclusion on the state of Democracy and Politics.

Technically true, but the vast majority of voters in this country vote for a candidate and party based on the person who they wish to see as prime minister.

Most people refer to 'I voted for Blair' or 'I voted for Cameron' when discussing their general election vote.

Most people refer to 'I voted for Blair' or 'I voted for Cameron' when discussing their general election vote.

Did you speak to "most people" perhaps when you got out more

Tim Newroman wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Hmmmf wrote:

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
well if he doesn't deliver, he can be sure to be shown the exit door, so let's see what he can deliver shall we

And if he doesn't deliver during his four-year term, he'll have made £280,000 for failing. I doubt he'll be too upset when he's 'shown the exit door,' especially since he'll be able to claim it's our fault for not giving him all the answers he's looking for.

The Prime Minister gets £600K for doing exactly that.......

Patently absurd, and not even mildly amusing. Are you seriously attempting to compare the leader of this country's Government to some powerless local carpet-bagger?

The PCC is directly elected and holds a mandate from the public....
The Prime Minister has not been elected in his position but nominated by a political party that is not even holding a Parliamentaty majority....
I will let you draw your own conclusion on the state of Democracy and Politics.

Technically true, but the vast majority of voters in this country vote for a candidate and party based on the person who they wish to see as prime minister.

Most people refer to 'I voted for Blair' or 'I voted for Cameron' when discussing their general election vote.

Direct Democracy vs Representation.
The call is out there and we shall see which works best for us.

RichardR1 wrote:
It's OK everyone our resident expert on everything has told us all how to solve Swindon's problems.

Can't understand why he doesn't stand as a Councillor, Magistrate or PCC after all he tells us he knows to solution to everything.

As for the PCC, yes he can be removed, but as has been said a total waste of money.

RichardR1 says...
12:11pm Wed 20 Feb 13

It's OK everyone our resident expert on everything has told us all how to solve Swindon's problems.

Can't understand why he doesn't stand as a Councillor, Magistrate or PCC after all he tells us he knows to solution to everything.

Dear oh dear-i think you should look back on this article where i have said very little--i commented on your post as there were some very strange mistakes and errors and it made no sense.
I would never stand as a councillor as i have no interest in politics-nor would i become a magistrate or a PCC again as i have no interest as i have studied and reached what i consider level in my chosen profession with extremely good salary and allowances.

A.B-C wrote:
The PCC is directly elected and holds a mandate from the public....

No, he doesn't. Only 16% of Wiltshire's eligible population bothered to vote. Of those, only 5% or thereabouts actually voted for McPherson as a first choice.
The obvious 'mandate from the public' was that the overwhelming majority of 84% don't give *any* PCC a mandate whatsoever.
He beat Labour's Clare Moody only after second preference votes were counted as neither managed to get 50% of votes.
Don't believe me? Believe the PCC himself:

Angus Macpherson told the BBC:
It's not so much a mandate, it's more, in the Wiltshire situation, a large job interview

If "Direct Democracy" were actually served, then there would be no PCC, as the 84% majority would seem to suggest it's not a position worth voting for, and there's no way to vote 'against' except by not voting at all.

itsamess3 wrote...
nor would i become a magistrate or a PCC again as i have no interest

It's possible you may have been a magistrate at some point (it'd certainly explain a lot), but I'm fairly certain you've never been a Police and Crime Commissioner.

I would never stand as a councillor as i have no interest in politics-nor would i become a magistrate or a PCC again as i have no interest as i have studied and reached what i consider level in my chosen profession with extremely good salary and allowances.”

Do not take part sentences out of context--it makes you look very stupid.

Tim Newroman wrote:

itsamess3 wrote...
nor would i become a magistrate or a PCC again as i have no interest

It's possible you may have been a magistrate at some point (it'd certainly explain a lot), but I'm fairly certain you've never been a Police and Crime Commissioner.

Do you have to answer EVERY comment on behalf of RichardR1?

Why would that be?

Back to the plan. There are three main strands. Join IT systems with the council's, will not work. Set up tri force operational units and training, e.g. vut the number of officers working on the issues and close police stations across the county. All the small stations and the southern div HA will go. And all the time he has a cash reserve of nearly twenty million.

As many have said, we have laws in place, the problem is the stupid softly softly judges who lost touch with reality a long time age. Proper sentencing, 3 strikes and you are locked up for life which works so well in the States, prisons less like holiday camps and more spent on the real victims of crime. The new man will be all mouth and trousers and no real improvement . 70k and pension and allowances is criminal in itself........

LocalBob80 wrote:

Tim Newroman wrote:

itsamess3 wrote...
nor would i become a magistrate or a PCC again as i have no interest

It's possible you may have been a magistrate at some point (it'd certainly explain a lot), but I'm fairly certain you've never been a Police and Crime Commissioner.

Do you have to answer EVERY comment on behalf of RichardR1?

Why would that be?

Hi Jase.

Those in receipt of the gravy will want to continue to mop it up at the same rate for a given amount of work/resposibility. The status quo.

Given the chance they will mop up more if they can get it, for the same amount of work/responsibilty or less, in return.

What they won't do is mop up less gravy for the same amount of work/responsibility.


They will simply state, following a sharp intake of breath 'You can't do that, it will upset too many people (the gravy train)

This is the institutionalised inertia the the CC will have to overcome to be able to even introduce the most minor of changes to the status quo.

I predict he will give up within a few months and adopt a low profile and ride out his term quietly mopping up gravy while it is still available.

Of course, he could take the bull by the horns and adopt a dynamic and thrusting approach and sweep aside all resistance to change in the way gravy is dispensed. And then again.....

Yes, I totally agree with Silent Majority

Mr Itsamess if you made a small attempt at grammar and punctuation the context of your staement would have been clear, a simple apostrophy would have done it.

Commenting on my use of language whilst not even using basic sentence forming makes you the idiot.

RichardR1 wrote:
Mr Itsamess if you made a small attempt at grammar and punctuation the context of your staement would have been clear, a simple apostrophy would have done it.

Commenting on my use of language whilst not even using basic sentence forming makes you the idiot.

Whilst the rest of us knew perfectly well what he meant.

We are not interested in your ridiculous squabble

We are not here for grammar lessons

Fartim Poster perhaps you would do well to actually read the thread I merely followed on from criticism by another poster who clearly didn't understand.

So if I may ask who you are an reincarnation of.