Accountable Police

The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has come out strongly against the idea they should be accountable to the local people they serve…

Courtesy: BBC

Police chief constables may resign if a Tory government tries to place forces under local political control, the head of their professional body has warned.

Sir Hugh Orde, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, said colleagues would resist being told how to protect the public by locally-elected leaders.

The Tories want these officials to be able to hire and fire police chiefs and set force budgets in England and Wales.

I mean honestly, giving the voters more control over a service they pay tax money for, where will it end?!

It is absolutely right that  police should be responsible to the local people they serve, so that they both respond to the priorities of their local communities, and so that they are seen to be serving local communities and not higher authorities far removed from local people.

Sir Hugh also gets himself in a muddle quite spectacularly…

Sir Hugh said police independence was vital to public trust and democracy.

[...]In an interview for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Sir Hugh warned democracy would be undermined if there was even a “perception” of political influence over chief constables.

“Operation independence is absolutely critical,” he said.

“Even the perception that the police service of this country… is under any political influence, I think that suggests you cannot argue that you are a proper democratic society. It’s as simple and as stark as that.

Er, no Hugh. Police independence means the police should not be part of the executive branch of government, so that they are instead representatives and equals with the public and not an arm of the state (which can lead to a police state).

Police independence does not mean the police should be immune from democratic accountability; it does not mean the police are a law unto themselves. There is a difference between “political influence” and “democratic accountability”.

He digs himself further into a hole…

“I would not be surprised to see chief officers not want to be part of a system where they can be told how to deliver policing,” said Sir Hugh.

“If one just thinks about that for a moment, the agenda as you rightly identify is local policing.

“There will be no votes in protecting people from terrorism, from organised crime and from serial rapists that cross the country because they won’t be local and they won’t get you votes.

Firstly, I think people are pretty able to understand the existence of ‘non-local’ issues which need to be tackled. I am sure there are votes in it, but it just means somebody has to put forward the case and ask people to support the measures.

That is the whole point of democracy! It means owning ‘the state’ and being a shareholder and customer in it. Far worse is what we have at the moment where people are disenfranchised because they feel the state is imposed upon them.

He said the majority of chief officers wanted to replace the current 44 forces with larger regional ones better placed to tackle major investigations including terrorism, serious organised crime and internet-based fraud.

So really he has just identified the need for a multi-layered police force, like wot they have in other countries. Local police to deal with ‘minor’ crimes, then wider areas forces to deal with more serious and wider area crimes, all the way up to a national force to deal with national and international crime.

With brains like these in the police force is it any wonder the British public are losing faith in it?