‘Public need to be made more aware of elections’ (From Witney Gazette)

Among other responsibilities, the new Police & Crime Commissioner will be able to hire/fire the Chief Constable, set the council tax precept for Thames Valley Police and (in partnership with the Chief Constable) set out the overall plans for local policing. This will be a very influential and powerful position. Please make sure you vote on 15 November!

It will be the PCC (not the Chief Constable) who could one day be signing the contracts to privatise patrol policing or crime investigation. (Or not...)

I urge everyone to get involved in thinking about what shape of policing we need in Oxford and beyond to Thames Valley. If I am selected, please expect to see me in Oxford town centre, perhaps at the school gate or at your community meeting. I am keen to listen to your views. (The Labour Party manifesto is very much not written yet.)

You can also write to me now: jonsharvey4tvpcc@vir
ginmedia.com or contact me via Twitter @cllrjonsharvey

I am keen to understand what matters to you.

And I very disappointed that the Home Secretary has (for the moment) chosen not to issue a leaflet to all households about the voting system, what the new job is all about as well as details of all the candidates. Instead the Home Office is planning to have a website where each candidate will have 300 words to make their pitch. I am unclear how people will get to hear about this website... if they are not regular users of the net. My fear is that this will skew awareness in favour of the digitally aware (as it were) rather than ~all~ members of society. This does not seem very democratic to me.

But who knows - just as the Government has seen sense over the pasty tax - they might see sense over this issue as well?

I think the 1 million households in Thames Valley deserve to be sent - in the post - official information about this huge change in policing governance. I am grateful to Chief Constable Sara Thornton for doing her bit to raise this matter.

I have also already written to the Police Authority requesting that they organise dates and venues for hustings meetings in late October / early November - now. The candidates can then all be slotted into these meetings later - ensuring that will be no bias. I have not received a reply yet (but that is no criticism - I only wrote towards the end of last week).

Finally, as I say, please get involved - it is your police service - your safety!

I prefer policing to be in the hands of qualified professionals with oversight provided by representatives of local authorities - in other words, the present system. Jon Harvey is right about one thing: it IS our police service, so why would we want to place trust in one politicised individual who could pursue all manner of idiosyncratic priorities during his or her tenure of office?

Would be useful if the candidates were to throw their hats into the ring and then this would at least generate some media interest. The government has also been too slow getting the rules confirmed for the elections.

Jon: -

To help us decide how to vote, what's your opinion?

In light of the recent rise in deaths on Oxfordshire's roads since speed cameras were switched on by the police, and the consequent scaling back of police checks on Oxfordshire's reads - do you want to keep funding speed cameras or spend the money on more traffic police to catch all bad drivers?

iklhik wrote:
Jon: -

To help us decide how to vote, what's your opinion?

In light of the recent rise in deaths on Oxfordshire's roads since speed cameras were switched on by the police, and the consequent scaling back of police checks on Oxfordshire's reads - do you want to keep funding speed cameras or spend the money on more traffic police to catch all bad drivers?

More road humps, AND speed cameras, is what Jon wants. More patrols to catch bad drivers is NOT what he wants. He is a money generator, not a crime fighter.

Despite MACVEY's unrivalled reputation for fairness, I think I'd rather hear Jon Harvey's response in his own words.

To be clear, the model of investing all the power of the current police authorities (with some extra bits added too) in one elected person is not the model of police governance that the Labour Party favours. We fought hard against its introduction not least because of the cost of mounting elections during times when the police are already being cut by 20%. Moreover, I have been following the development of this Tory policy for many years. And I know they were advised in the strongest and most coherent ways by professional police officers and other experts not to pursue this. However, they refused to listen and so this is where we are now. These elections will be going ahead (notwithstanding the Government falling before the Autumn). Unsurprisingly, we in the Labour Party will be contesting all of positions as we believe Labour PCCs will be better. Standing aside is not an option.

In many ways I agree with you Porphyro - the professionals do need to be charge. Under the new legislation the Chief Constable will be operationally independent of the PCC but accountable to them. The PCCs will not be meddling in the day to day running of the police - which is at it should be.

However, I would also contend that the existing police authority is already 'politicised' - deciding how much and where to spend scarce public resources is a political act. The decision over council tax precept has to carry the majority support of the 10 councillors on the PA under the existing arrangement. This is a reflection of its democratic importance.

And I agree, we do not want a PCC pursuing "all manner of idiosyncratic priorities during his or her tenure of office". On that basis be very wary of voting for an "independent" candidate who would have no party structure to support and challenge them. (But that is a whole other debate!) Please be assured that I am no maverick with a whole heap of fringe policies to inflict on ordinary everyday policing in Thames Valley. I stand for good solid and evidence based policing practice that works to prevent crime & anti-social behaviour and deal with incidents swiftly, effectively and fairly when they happen.

But the Labour manifesto is not written yet. That is why I am keen to hear people’s views. And so with regard to what will be the Labour candidate’s approach to speeding and other road traffic offences is yet to be determined. (I am still in the running to be the candidate – results to be announced soon.)

But I am confused. All the newspaper reports I have read say that deaths on Oxfordshire roads went up when the speed cameras were turned off – not on. (Iklhik???) See for example this story in Oxford Mail: http://www.oxfordmai
l.co.uk/archive/2011
/03/26/Oxford+news+%
28om_oxfordnews%29/8
934627.print/ If road deaths have risen another 50% since they were turned back on again last year – I would be interested to read those reports. Can someone point me in that direction? If the road deaths have carried on rising that suggests to me as a scientist that the speed cameras are not the factor. For information, most of the money from speeding fines goes into the treasury – not the TV Police bank account. Some money is retained for camera maintenance and general road safety improvement – but the Chancellor gets his hands on most of it!
And to Lord Peter Macvay – I would say that I am crime fighter. I have spent more than 20 years working with and for the police because I want more community safety and less crime. I aim to do all that I can to help create communities that are ‘richer’ because they are safer, healthier and wealthier for all.

Thank you, Jon - an excellent response that deals fairly and straightforwardly with the background to PCCs and the current issues. I accept your point that if the government insists on unwise and unwanted reforms then we have to deal with the world as it is and not abstain from selecting candidates.

The Tories' record on big reforms is not one to inspire confidence. Remember the poll tax and rail privatisation, to name but two from a much longer list. I remember the Major promises that rail privatisation would reduce public subsidies; the reality is that the public subsidies have increased greatly over and above inflation.

I think they should make more people aware of these elections - I would like to stand and if I won get paid £85,000 to tell TVP where to target their effort.

Undoubtedly all the politicians will be fighting tooth and nail to join this gravy train too - get the top job without having to work your way up from the bottom. Cushty!

Severian

I agree - the Government should be far more active in letting people know about these elections.

You can find information about how to stand (and lots more) here:

http://www.homeoffic
e.gov.uk/police/poli
ce-crime-commissione
rs/questions/electio
ns/

The job might sound to you like a gravy train - but I suspect it won't be!

Have a look at www.policecrimecommi
ssioner.co.uk. Lists all the potential candidates and all latest news, local and national (Thats where I found this article). People do need to understand what this election is all about and thats the most informative site i ve seen so far.

JonHarvey wrote:
To be clear, the model of investing all the power of the current police authorities (with some extra bits added too) in one elected person is not the model of police governance that the Labour Party favours. We fought hard against its introduction not least because of the cost of mounting elections during times when the police are already being cut by 20%. Moreover, I have been following the development of this Tory policy for many years. And I know they were advised in the strongest and most coherent ways by professional police officers and other experts not to pursue this. However, they refused to listen and so this is where we are now. These elections will be going ahead (notwithstanding the Government falling before the Autumn). Unsurprisingly, we in the Labour Party will be contesting all of positions as we believe Labour PCCs will be better. Standing aside is not an option.

In many ways I agree with you Porphyro - the professionals do need to be charge. Under the new legislation the Chief Constable will be operationally independent of the PCC but accountable to them. The PCCs will not be meddling in the day to day running of the police - which is at it should be.

However, I would also contend that the existing police authority is already 'politicised' - deciding how much and where to spend scarce public resources is a political act. The decision over council tax precept has to carry the majority support of the 10 councillors on the PA under the existing arrangement. This is a reflection of its democratic importance.

And I agree, we do not want a PCC pursuing "all manner of idiosyncratic priorities during his or her tenure of office". On that basis be very wary of voting for an "independent" candidate who would have no party structure to support and challenge them. (But that is a whole other debate!) Please be assured that I am no maverick with a whole heap of fringe policies to inflict on ordinary everyday policing in Thames Valley. I stand for good solid and evidence based policing practice that works to prevent crime & anti-social behaviour and deal with incidents swiftly, effectively and fairly when they happen.

But the Labour manifesto is not written yet. That is why I am keen to hear people’s views. And so with regard to what will be the Labour candidate’s approach to speeding and other road traffic offences is yet to be determined. (I am still in the running to be the candidate – results to be announced soon.)

But I am confused. All the newspaper reports I have read say that deaths on Oxfordshire roads went up when the speed cameras were turned off – not on. (Iklhik???) See for example this story in Oxford Mail: http://www.oxfordmai

l.co.uk/archive/2011

/03/26/Oxford+news+%

28om_oxfordnews%29/8

934627.print/ If road deaths have risen another 50% since they were turned back on again last year – I would be interested to read those reports. Can someone point me in that direction? If the road deaths have carried on rising that suggests to me as a scientist that the speed cameras are not the factor. For information, most of the money from speeding fines goes into the treasury – not the TV Police bank account. Some money is retained for camera maintenance and general road safety improvement – but the Chancellor gets his hands on most of it!
And to Lord Peter Macvay – I would say that I am crime fighter. I have spent more than 20 years working with and for the police because I want more community safety and less crime. I aim to do all that I can to help create communities that are ‘richer’ because they are safer, healthier and wealthier for all.

The figures are for public (and indeed your) viewing. And with the recent fatalities over the last week are approx 200% up on the figures for when the cameras were turned off (which included the worst road conditions since 1964. Whilst driving during the switch off period I drove as normal, during the switch on period my attention was to where are the cameras, not how can I drive (safely) normally. That just about says it all. Patrols on the road catching dangerous drivers, not boxes on the side of the road catching otherwise safe drivers, that is the way forward. Last Night coming home from Red Lion after 6 pints I knew I was safe from prosecution, because after racing over the bridge and the great right hander at the bottom, a quick look at the roundabout and foot down till I got to Woodstock Close, foot on the brake 28mph through the camera and then go for it till I turn right into Polstead Rd, and then a gentle cruise till I get home. No Problem. If I thought that there was a chance of meeting a police patrol then I wouldn't dare drive, but as all I have to do is slow down for a camera, then I will drive. There are more and more like me that show disdain for camera policy, because we know we will not be caught for the more serious offences. Much the same as CCTV on the streets do not deter the real Crims, it just moves them on to pastures new. There is no alternative to police on the streets.

Thankfully most drivers are a great deal more responsible than the hypothetical example Macvay gives. He may think speed limits are crude but the vast majority of ordinary people support speed limits and speed cameras, as do motoring organisations, the police, politicians of ll the minstream parties and independent researchers who have subjected the data to rigorous analysis.

I suspect reasoned argument will not shift Macvay from his stubborn irrationality; it's best not to take him seriously.

I have no problem with speed limits. The fixed cameras are a waste of time though, they only catch tourists (or the very stupid) and must put people off the visiting the area. The deployment of mobile cameras I find very fishy, if they were at accident black spots I could understand and agree with their use as a deterrent but the ones I see are clearly there to capture people who speed but there isn't a history of road accidents. The 415 coming into Standlake often has one there, I have used that road everyday for six years and there has never been a accident, there is however lots of people who slow down late and they are clearly the target for the camera. Lord Peters example is a bit extreme but his general point is right. If the police wanted to tackle road safety then 10 unmarked cars patrolling the roads every day looking for poor drivers as well as speeding would sort things out and be a proper deterrent rather than a cash generator. This requires police to leave their expensive PFI funded air conditioned offices and do some actual police work though.

Porphyro wrote:
Thankfully most drivers are a great deal more responsible than the hypothetical example Macvay gives. He may think speed limits are crude but the vast majority of ordinary people support speed limits and speed cameras, as do motoring organisations, the police, politicians of ll the minstream parties and independent researchers who have subjected the data to rigorous analysis.

I suspect reasoned argument will not shift Macvay from his stubborn irrationality; it's best not to take him seriously.

It was not speed limits that I was commenting on. READ MY POST. It was the fact that I can drive home after 6 pints knowing that I will not be caught for Drink driving, only for speeding on a camera. If I am too (after ten pints) drunk to slow down for it, then I get 3 pts on my licence. Is this the kind of policing you want? P.S. Just off to pick the missus up from her mates house, safe in the knowledge that there are no police on our roads.

Oh my lord!
Your post clearly implies that your driver slows down to comply with the limit when he knows that a speed camera is present. "Racing over the bridge" and "foot down till I get to Woodstock Close" do not exactly suggest that speed limits are being observed, does it?

You seem to suggest too that drivers will deliberately drive dangerously if they think there is little chance of a police car being in the vicinity. That attitude is plain irresponsible.

As a matter of fact, I do quite often notice that cars have been pulled over by the police who are doing exactly what you seem to approve of. I think speed cameras also have an important part to play in the overall attempt to make roads safer and drivers more responsible in their attitude to speed and risk.

Porphyro wrote:
Oh my lord!
Your post clearly implies that your driver slows down to comply with the limit when he knows that a speed camera is present. "Racing over the bridge" and "foot down till I get to Woodstock Close" do not exactly suggest that speed limits are being observed, does it?

You seem to suggest too that drivers will deliberately drive dangerously if they think there is little chance of a police car being in the vicinity. That attitude is plain irresponsible.

As a matter of fact, I do quite often notice that cars have been pulled over by the police who are doing exactly what you seem to approve of. I think speed cameras also have an important part to play in the overall attempt to make roads safer and drivers more responsible in their attitude to speed and risk.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. P.S. Since Swindon turned off their cameras their roads have not turned into death traps, in FACT they are the SAFEST in the UK with just 2 accidents per thousand cars. Compare that with London with Speed and everything else cameras every few yards and a rate of 90 accidents per thousand cars and your argument has just got blown out of the water. Sorry Porpy Lad.

I don't think Echo and Narcissus-sorry Mr. Harvey and Mr. Porphyro-need worry too much. The Thames Valley is adhering strictly to a socialist agenda where "Domestic Violence", and you'd need to be a Professor of Semantics to appreciate the area that that is defined as covering, occupies that part of the Force which is not occupied by "Hate Crimes" like calling someone "Tubs"
Crimes that the rest of us worry about , like burglary and theft, still have a dedicated but tiny band of officers , led by Chief Wiggum I believe.
Covering the roads with concrete blocks and cameras and lower and lower speed limits is, in fairness, not a particularly TVP thing, it's bureaucratic creep, substitute activity. We no longer make things in this country but have an infinite number of clerks desperately trying to appear busy.
"These elections will be going ahead (notwithstanding the Government falling before the Autumn)." I don't think you meant that Mr. Harvey, for the Government has not fallen. You presumably mean that the Socialist Party would cancel the elections. Frankly since re-electing the Party which took us to the edge of Hell in a handcart would destroy what's left of the country I doubt that move would matter that much.