Monday, 12 November 2012

Gadget makes my mind up

Well, I was quite sceptical about the Police & Crime Commissioner elections, until this morning when I noticed that Inspector Gadget believes that the PCC elections will lead to the slaughter of six million Jews.  No, seriously, he does:
For those of you who would like to do some further research in to what happens when political organisations get their hands on police forces during hard economic times, you might like to start with a look at Germany in the 1930′s.
Amazing. A Godwin's law moment and an apostrophe error, all in just one sentence.

They do say that you can judge the quality of an idea from the quality of the objection to it.  On that basis, the PCC elections are a fantastic idea.  So, that is me in favour of voting for someone... but who?

We have the usual range of political-party-appointed candidates.  I'll rule those out immediately, the post should not be a party-political one and I want the Commissioner to be their own person, not reliant on a (re)selection committee waiting behind the wings.  That leaves two independent candidates in my election (Thames Valley).

One is ardently against politicos being elected to the post; that would seem to be a big factor in her favour until you research her twitter feed and discover that she is a little coy about revealing that she is a failed Labour councillor.  Ooops.

Which leaves the other one.  He wouldn't be my first choice; although he doesn't mention it in his literature, he is an estate agent.  However, he is also an experienced Magistrate, and firmly believes that the role should be non-political.  He is a former councillor, but acknowledges this in his literature rather than hiding it and as he has previously served as a Labour, Conservative, and then UKIP councillor he could well be non-party political.

Yep, he'll do.


  1. So, he's an experienced magistrate, which means he's used to wagging his finger at people and telling them off without needing any personal merit. He's an estate agent, so he's not only a lieing bastard but does it for a living.
    And this is the BEST choice?

  2. It does rather show the quality of the field, doesn't it?

  3. But I do adore the naïveté of Gadget, there. Does he really think that the police are not at the mercy of political organisations now..?

  4. Robert - sadly, yes. Even so, better than a political appointee.

    Julia - precisely!

  5. My thoughts on the PCC elections are that the system has already been politicised so it's surely better that the politicised supervisory system should be directly elected and transparently accountable.

    HOWEVER Gadget is also one of the ones peddling the myth that the PCC role is the same as being Commissioner of Police. It's utter rubbish. The PCC role replaces the Police Authorities which were a wonderfully British system of co-opted councillors and other worthies with no accountability whatsover and therefore no mandata whatsover to encourage the police services to concentrate on x, y or z.

    So zero cheers for Gadget and half a cheer for two governing parties finally willing to face up to reality.

    1. Aye, because voted in Sherrifs works SOOO bloody well in the U.S.A, and MORE petty politicians, living of the tax payers purse strings can NEVER be a bad thing....right?

  6. XX Amazing. A Godwin's law moment XX

    Ahhh. "Godwins law".

    An excuse used by communists, or "Greens", or anti-smokers, or anti fattists, or any other hippy grouping, to deflect, or "defeat" any reasoned argument/discussion away from the clear fact that there IS no difference between them and the nazis, when that reasoning comes dangerously close to proving the fact.

    And used by Nazis, who are loosing their argument, but can not be seen to be "throwing-in-the-towel."