God forbid that we become like America where the rule-by-mob mentality has hamstrung real, progressive policing.

In London the people with the rule-by-mob mentality are the police.

Effectively we are being dished out more politicians at the expense of less police. These proposals sound like more wishy washy meddling by Condem. Has Ms May costed out how much this will cost. Do we really need more politicians?

ranelagh75

Since you mention America, what I observed during a spell in smaller-city California, is that the City police were responsive to public opinion.

There were no drunken mobs in the streets after midnight. No graffiti or vandalism around. Different mind-set? Or frequent patrols, wide powers of arrest on suspicion, and a prominent County Jail where offenders were incarcerated. A deterrent in itself.

Gun crime? It happened. But usually to members of the same family. Random shootings rare. Knife crime not a serious issue, as it is here.

Oh, if you shot at the police, a SWAT team would be called to deal with you. Not much public sympathy for those who fired at an officer.

Crime? Mostly Driving Under Influence, leading to wipe-out in a Single Vehicle Accident on those winding tree lined rural roads.

Mostly folk want to get on with their lives, without criminals interfering. Local sheriffs and police chiefs have an incentive to do well with that - they get to be re-elected.

Never saw any mob-rule preventing progressive policing. Do you refer to rehabilitation? That isn't really a police matter. Society in gereral is responsible.

Would this be one of those things that seem good on paper, but probably isn't.
Just use some of the many thosands of politicians we already have.
I could imagine some of the campaigns to be very unpleasant., and i'm pretty sure divisive.

Consider the rubbish turn out for European elections, council elections and so on and somehow people are now supposed to get excited and turn out in adequate numbers (to be representative of anything) about people they don't know and many will struggle to understand what it is they will do.

The danger will be that it lends itself to pompous, platform posturing and those standing appealing to lowest common denominator populist polices (should apologise I suppose for the alliteration) rather than proper policing policy. Also very hard to see how politicians such as Johnson do not see this as a political move after his pronouncement about "hands on the tiller".

There seems to be a massive contradiction between the messages that have been put out by this government. On the one hand, get politicians out of professions - let the professionals run the service (the supposed thinking behind free schools and the NHS reforms). This is because the state has become too powerful.

On the other hand, supposedly "democratise" services by introducing more politicians into the process (such as this, in my view dangerous, plan for the police). So, what's best, elected politicians running services, or professionals? The government needs to sort out its ideas here, because the message is very confused and inconsistent.

@CaptainKydd: I am actually from America and emigrated to the UK many years ago because of the untouchable attitude of many police officers. yes, it is getting worse here but is nowhere near as bad as it is there. Everytime I go back, I always feel like I'm breaking some law and will be tackled by police officers and thrown in jail.

I'm talking about absurd enforcement of tabloid-led initiatives (the treatment of sex offenders in some states, for instance, is beyond ludicrous). I'm talking about officers of the law who engage in cruel and unusual punishment (google Sheriff Joe Arpaio for more information - ND, he is directly elected).

I tend to place more faith in my elected representative to nominate who is best to control policing over wide areas rather than rely upon a populace whipped into a frenzy by a self-serving and irresponsible tabloid, because I've seen the havoc that a directly-elected representative can wreak.

The police do not need "shaklng up" they need to be left alone to evolve in to a more fully functioning and respected arm of the executive.

In short what we do not need is someone playing cops and robbers while the effective and professional force that we have is left to go to rack and ruin.

Simply ask the average serving police officer what they need and then provide it.

As stated above the apathy towards voting would allow, lets say.. A member of the BNP to rally support in any given area where an election is taking place and hey presto we have a democratically elcted BNP Police Commissioner. Be afraid.. be very afraid!!

Kit Malthouse today:

Current structures could breed "somebody who gives less thought to the niceties of democracy and freedom and liberalism in this country than otherwise might be the case"

Kit Malthouse on Monday on how we should deal with problem drinkers who fail the twice-a-day compulsory breathaliser test he would introduce:

“The sanction is immediate and certain - straight into the cells, no argument, no court, no lawyers."

Hmmm!

Yet more " back of a fag packet " politics.

Would an elected chief have made a difference in the Ian Tomlinson case? A most definate yes I think.

I have studied the history of policing in the Uk, and Boris's proposals are a serious step backwards. The reason that Peel got his Bill through parliment, was on the grounds that his police force would be as independant as it was possible from government interference and influence. The fear being at the time in 1848, was the creation of a French secret police, as had existed after the French revolution. Hence it was decided that the Home secretary would appoint a Chief Constable on behalf of parliment and its voters.

Peel's force was also to replace the previous corrupt constables, largley elected by the local population, who were a law unto themselves, who meted out justice dependant on the whims of local vested interests(unless of course a defendant could come up with a suitable bribe to avoid prosecution)

Boris now propose an elected body, who would be dependant on an electorate with vested interests, plus the constant all baying press to determine a chief constables future actions and in turn the associated police force.

There is already enough knee jerking by as proved by the actions of previous Home secretaries to 'Public opinion' and some of the actions of the present police force are questionable(abuse of anti terrorism law for example).

The last thing we need is another body beholding to the vagaries of the voting public to run our police force, as we have one already called Parliment.

What we do need is serious debate on how we should be policed in the 21st Century; not the populist grandstanding that Boris Johnson is indulging in.

Boris proposes a system where those

It's good to know Kit Malthouse has not decided to spare the rod. Those whose ego fails to promote freedom,liberalism and democracy, should be accountable. I never realised how near the Communist/Nazi party the police had come, but state control of the police is how they cling to power. So who is chicken and who is egg?

Thanks, ranelagh75, for your further comments. I see where you're coming from.

What concerns me most is the trend away from 'difficult' policing - muggings, graffiti, damage to property, beating up the elderly, mostly perpetrated by the youth of both sexes who are beyond parental control and below the attention of the police.

Senior officers 'know' that there is no point in giving the offenders, who are often well-known in their districts, a 'good talking to', or even a prosecution. Usually the courts give the offender a slap on the wrist, or a non-custodial sentence. (ASBO, anyone?) And it makes the reoffending figures look bad.

Next time, the police will simply ignore the situation, when a group of a couple of dozen youths turn on the complainer, and make their lives hell.

'Progressive, information-led policing targeting serious crimes'? Yes, it's all very well, but it doesn't impress the weak and elderly voters who are suffering every day.

What else can the victims do? Answer - vote for a system where the police respond to crimes as the victims see them. Get the mobs off the streets, and their parents too, if they are part of the problem.

The last government was particularly weak on protecting the weak of the community. ASBOs, anyone? Did I say that before?

I agree that an ideal police response would deal with crime at all levels, but you must allow that being elected would concentrate the mind wonderfully on who to protect first.

Thanks, ranelagh75, for your further comments. I see where you're coming from.

What concerns me most is the trend away from 'difficult' policing - muggings, graffiti, damage to property, beating up the elderly, mostly perpetrated by the youth of both sexes who are beyond parental control and below the attention of the police.

Senior officers 'know' that there is no point in giving the offenders, who are often well-known in their districts, a 'good talking to', or even a prosecution. Usually the courts give the offender a slap on the wrist, or a non-custodial sentence. (ASBO, anyone?) And it makes the reoffending figures look bad.

Next time, the police will simply ignore the situation, when a group of a couple of dozen youths turn on the complainer, and make their lives hell.

'Progressive, information-led policing targeting serious crimes'? Yes, it's all very well, but it doesn't impress the weak and elderly voters who are suffering every day.

What else can the victims do? Answer - vote for a system where the police respond to crimes as the victims see them. Get the mobs off the streets, and their parents too, if they are part of the problem.

The last government was particularly weak on protecting the weak of the community. ASBOs, anyone? Did I say that before?

I agree that an ideal police response would deal with crime at all levels, but you must allow that being elected would concentrate the mind wonderfully on who to protect first.

It is becoming clear by the day that the some believe the police are above the law. But putting it in to the hands of elected leaders is a recipe for corruption and the worst kind of politicking. The recent scandals regarding the unwillingness to bring bad policeman before a jury makes this kind of development appear so much more attractive. Ian Blair got up Johnson's nose; Kit Malthouse is a maglomaniac.

So far everything they have come up with costs money. we'll all be watching they'd get the right by the end of they year or they're going to look even sillier than they do now.

i'd rather like to see the ACPO brought back under some form of control. Then, i'd rather like Chief Constables to STFU and do what they are paid to do - enforce the law as passed by Parliament, not "interpret" it or just plain old ignore it wholesale (i.e. arrest of photographers, FIT teams etc etc)

The upper echelons of the police "service" (what was wrong with "force"?) are beyond control as it stands, and they seem to be accountable to no-one. It's about time they were.

British police are politically correct, reactive (barely that) instead of proactive, thin on the ground, and scared of violent criminals, including travellers. I feel far, far safer walking the streets of an American city than I do here. In the US cops are everywhere crowds congregate. In the UK they're nowhere to be seen.

" Boris Johnson's deputy mayor for policing, Kit Malthouse, said today that elected police commissioners would be able to "wield the rod" against chief constables as he delivered a broadside against chiefs' current "extreme powers".

Malthouse, who chairs London's Metropolitan Police Authority on behalf of the mayor.................."

So that's a good working relationship then.