Shop now Shop now Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Police Commissioners Candidates....the usual suspects?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 59 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 21 Oct 2012 09:10:55 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Oct 2012 09:33:24 BDT
Molly Brown says:
"The Prime Minister has recently said that the being a police and crime commissioner is a 'big job for a big local figure'. Dynamic leaders, community champions, pioneers and entrepreneurs should consider standing for this office."

Key dates:
Nominations will open 8 October 2012 and close 19 October 2012
The first PCC elections will take place on 15 November 2012
PCCs will take office 22 November 2012


A person may stand as a PCC if:
they are 18 or over
they are a British, Commonwealth or EU citizen
they are registered to vote in the force area in which they wish to stand

A person may not stand as a PCC if:
they have been convicted of an imprisonable offence
they are a serving; civil servant, judge, police officer, member of the regular armed forces, employee of a council within the force area, employee of a police related agency, employee of another government agency, politically restricted post-holder, member of police staff (including PCSOs) or member of a police authority
MEPs, MSPs, AMs and MPs will be able to stand as PCCs, but will need to stand down from their existing post before being able to accept the post of PCC
To be formally nominated a candidate's nomination will need to be signed by 100 people registered to vote in the police force area where the candidate is standing.

The candidate will need to give a deposit of £5,000 which will be returned if they receive more than 5% of the votes cast in the election

Nominations ended only on the 19th October 2012, the Bill was passed in May last year. I received my Polling Card yesterday, but I have had no literature on who's standing. It's being held on 15th November, not much time for someone to make up their mind or find out more. Looked my candidates up on the BBC Website for the South West. How the hell am I supposed to know who to vote for, and how do I make a protest vote that I don't want an elected political or corporate commissioner to control my local police?

I gather the turn out will be, or more likely, seems designed to be a low turnout being held in the middle of Winter as it is. I assume that even if as is being guesstimated there might be a 14% turnout, someone will be elected regardless of their vote percentage of the total electorate. Surely, if this had to become part of our local government system, which I don't agree it should be, the winning candidate should have to reach more than 50% of the turnout.

Anyone actually in favour of this election, should the new Commissioners be from political parties, or vested interests, standing as so called independents, or does anyone know more about how it is going to work?

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 09:47:49 BDT
Don't only encourages them.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 10:18:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Oct 2012 19:09:20 BDT
Spin says:
Molly: In other words, any Tom, Dick or Harry can now be a Police Commisioner. This means that the PC will be voted in according to an agenda, what he promises, rather than being placed in the job for his knowledge of policing and the law. This will result in our Police force adopting a biased policy towards policing, instead of a politically and morally neutral one. Thus "justice" and equality under the law will be forgotten in favour of the vested interests of those with enough cash and influence to stand for election (which is exactly what the right-wing, capitalist tories want. I think the PC should be unanimously selected by a committee of MPs from every party and representatives from all interested or affected parties. Otherwise one day a political, criminal or industrial stooge will be elected to power...

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 10:27:03 BDT
Molly Brown says:
Absolutely Spin!

I see John Prescott is standing for Labour in the Hull election! Well we know what sort of policing the "bulldog" would advocate, violent retaliation! I'm more interested in the allocation of budgets, political parties will make a "killing" when it comes to the privatisation of the Police. Virgin Policemen and women everywhere in shiny red Virgin attire. Glossy adverts, Richard's mates like Dr. Who and wannabe Oscar Wilde promoting each new service.

One of my local candidates, an Independent, is actually involved currently, so his Wiki page says, in the Syrian peace talks? That will be really useful down here in Devon and Cornwall. The Labour Candidate has been a SPAD for many years, and looks about twelve.

Think I'll just have to pick the one who looks the least dodgy I suppose?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 10:54:28 BDT
Good point.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 10:55:17 BDT

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 10:57:04 BDT
Frigging waste of taxpayers money...

Yours angrily, Angry of Itchin'

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 10:59:46 BDT
Howzabout we all stand?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 11:44:08 BDT
I would vote for my beloved...

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 17:28:13 BDT
If we do not know who we are voting for-- what is the point.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 17:35:10 BDT

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 18:47:45 BDT
Thank you dear...£65,000 - £100, 000 a year, plus the usual expenses...nice...Mrs K will be able to shop in Waitrose and John Lewis and we'll spend Christmas in the Caribbean. But as an earlier poster said, all the "usual suspects" have been lined up already...shame.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 19:16:34 BDT
Spin says:
Molly: I think these new laws concerning the Policing of the nation, coupled with ther laws, such as those which will govern campaign funding, is a step towards he US system of government, a right wing capitalist system whereby only those with money (who can fund their own campaign), or those funded by special-interest groups or corporations, will be able to attain positions of power. At a fundamental level, these changes initiate the decline of UK political parties and social movements as major forces in the nations governance.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 20:19:50 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Oct 2012 20:20:04 BDT
gille liath says:
Yeah, this is another example of spurious 'choice', where actually we don't need choice - all we need is the job done well.

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 20:22:59 BDT
Spin says:
The idea behind this new law is that if the police screw up, the government can blame the publics choice, rather than the public blaming the government. Agaion, it is a move towards the US system (Support your local sheriff) where the national government plays as little a part in local society and politics as possible.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 20:26:42 BDT
gille liath says:
Is it not more just that the Tories feel law & order is safe territory for them, and they want to get it more on the agenda - even if the actual policy makes no difference to anything?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 20:39:42 BDT
Spin says:
Gille: Well, first, Conservatism is not just an economic ideology, but a social one as well. People are so caught up in the current economic crisis they have forgotten that the Tories have other plans as well. Second, the new law making the "supplying of a fire-arm" is nonsensical since posssession of a firearm is already illegal (and I presume a gun supplier is "in posssession" of the firearms. Unless the new law means that t is illegal to physically hand over a weaponn to someone. If so, then the cutlery industry is in trouble). This new gun law is simply an attempt to appease the public after the murder of those two female police-officers and the events that preceded it. These new laws enable government, while cutting peoples income, and creating more crime, to blame the public for not getting it right and introduce laws which cannot be enforced. (on a side note, if supplying something that kills people is now illegal, does this mark the end of cigarette and alcohol companies?)

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 20:44:30 BDT
gille liath says:
Well presumably that's the analogy: possession of drugs is illegal, but supplying is a much more serious offence.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 21:08:14 BDT
Spin says:
Gille: But doesn't such a law contradict the core principle of capitalism; supply and demand? =) It is legal for the government to supply arms to other nations and dissident groups. The US supplies arms to the UK and others. Of course, the government cannot tax the sale of illegal weapons, and no profit can be gained from the labour force shooting each other. Thus it is legal for a nation to sell arms, but illegal for an individual to sell arms. (Cynicism? Moi?) =)

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 21:13:38 BDT
J A R P says:
The police commissioner will call for arrest and crimes-solved statistics. The police will inevitably become more interested in locking up small time offenders. The causes of crime (mostly the government's mismanagement and its subservient position relative to international business interests) these causes of crime will become irrelevant to the statistical culture, and will go undetected and unprosecuted. It's a bad move entirely.

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 21:17:01 BDT
Spin says:
The government is feeding the causes of crime and attempting to defer responsibility for its policing on the public.

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 21:21:27 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Oct 2012 21:22:15 BDT
J A R P says:
Some pointers on how to eradicate crime:

Legalise drugs
Give more money and property to teenagers and children
Ban profits from business
Ban advertising in media
Make lending money at interest illegal

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 21:26:01 BDT

Can you explain how I will live if my business does not make a profit?...I will have no income and be forced into crime....

Posted on 21 Oct 2012 21:37:22 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Oct 2012 21:42:57 BDT
J A R P says:
Profit is to be defined as the excessive remainder after the work has been paid for. Your selling things (do you sell carpets?) is work paid for with a surcharge. That is why in part you put a surcharge on what you buy when you sell it on. Shopkeeping is essential but menial work which relies on reselling with a surcharge. I don't imagine you ever make much actual 'profit' as I define it.

A greedy shopkeeper would need more surcharge. But greed is its own punishment.


To me, it is obvious that this is how the world actually works:

The intelligent and gifted live on the meanest share of the world's wealth. They flourish on small means.
The stupid live on the largest share of the world's wealth. They cannot amuse themselves and cannot become engrossed in creation, problem solution, progress, or ethical behaviour, and so require lots of remuneration.

That is why it is paradoxical that the most wealthy are also today most powerful. The reverse should, by the just order of things, by the case.


Periods of history have shown the poorest to be the most powerful, though these castes and orders (eg. the Medieval church) do become corrupted.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Oct 2012 21:41:35 BDT
Spin says:
Simon: or, instead of resorting to crime, you could get together with other business in your position and create a new form of commercial business; one which relies on the people constituting not just the consumer element but management and administration as well. The only people who turn to crime are those who think they are on their own.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
US foreign policy...views from the real world. 31 10 minutes ago
A quick up date for Brexit/leavers... 102 12 minutes ago
It's alright slating the Russians over Olympic drug taking BUT how many of the disabled lot take drugs, they are always popping pills but do they ever make the news. 14 2 hours ago
Next step in common sense drug laws. 6 6 hours ago
Labour refuse to comment on allegations that Jeremy Corbyn is a homosexual paedophile. 17 8 hours ago
Plastic bags...views from the real world. 26 9 hours ago
Hinkley Point; Costs £18 billion, will create 2500 jobs and 7% of the UK energy requirements 58 9 hours ago
Right wing politics, left wing politics and Skynet. 5 9 hours ago
Stuck in traffic and daft advice 18 12 hours ago
6 good chances each year that Birmingham could face regeneration 35 13 hours ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests proving homosexuality is from parental neglect 48 14 hours ago
Today's thrilling installment 95 15 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  59
Initial post:  21 Oct 2012
Latest post:  18 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions