I think the reference here is to Police investigating officers where they are employed on a territorial basis. That is, they can and do work anywhere in the Force area. So for legitimate travel expenses need a 'base' which would be regarded as their normal place of employment. They would doubtless choose the nearest Police Station to their home. No big issue; same rules apply to salesmen and the like. However, if we are really honest about it the PCC role is quite sedentary, no need to travel over much, say an average of once or twice a week at most. The PCCs staff and consequently its administrative location is housed at Police HO in Kidlington.

This also calls up another question; what does he actually do on all these visits?

I think there is something wrong with that. Let's say your boss works in Kidlington, and your role is an HQ one, but you live in Pangbourne and as you say you have a role that takes you across the region but you are in Kidlington two or three times a week. Is it right to nominate Pangbourne as your place of work even though you are never there when the only reason to do so is to boost your expenses claim? I would call that fraudulent.

Not necessarily fraud, but certainly the type of action of someone of little integrity!

Presumably as with most political type posts there is no way we can get rid of them, so by the time you realise you've elected a scum bag you are lumbered for the full term!

Whilst I have no broad personal experience, From what I have seen for myself and heard from others almost no-one gets to nominate their own normal place of work.

Good of you to admit that you don't know what you are talking about.

There must be times when, for instance a national company want you, the employee, to travel to various offices or work locations. It is they who want you to travel and therefore are prepared to bear the cost. In order to get it right with the taxman they nominate an office for you as local as they can. Is this scenario OK.

Doesn't change what Mr Stansfeld did though, he was just ragging the system.

How does the above differ from what Stansfield did other than being regional rather than national?

The simplest thing is to make the employee home based by the way. That way travel to everywhere is tax deductable. Although I don't think tax is the main issue with the police, because in their case it is public money.

You mean so we pay him travelling expenses every day?

If the role is based at Kidlington then he should pay the cost of his commute or move nearer to his place of employment (at his own expense). Travel to a conference in Birmingham or relocation of the job to Milton Keynes can be funded from the public purse.

It is not as if the role has a peppercorn salary, if it were I am sure many would accept travelling expenses to be reimbursed.

I wonder what the PM thinks on the matter or are they part of the same club?

Back in your box.

Declining to claim total knowledge is not admission of ignorance. Having been an employee since the late 60's, in a few employments and knowing more than a couple of people along the way, it seemed to me proper to give an outline of my understanding.....

If it permitted to express an understanding as opposed to professing total knowledge based on a prejudice, I find it odd for the employee to be the one nominating the 'normal place of work', especially when that is clearly not accurate.

But at least he has submitted his report http://bernardrix.com/2013/07/09/how-many-...annual-reports/"]but is it any good?[/url]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/expense...me-commissioner



Has he actually explained why it is impractical for him to drive himself around?

Well its not because he uses the time to fill in his expense forms...his staff do that for him apparently!

He also doesn't appear capable of filling his own expenses claim form and gets someone else to do it. Can he do anything himself? He seems vastly overpaid for his skills!

Perhaps he doesn't hold a valid licence or is even disqualified? Maybe he wants a car that can go Nee Naw Nee Naw Wooo Woo?

Nothing would surprise me.

Looking at the photo in the link provided by massifheed, is there a hint of tonsorial displacement.
As is usual for me, that reply has nothing to do with the expenses.
But people in positions of public trust seem to be able to summon up a just cause for actions that appear
to be jaw droppingly dodgy.

OK I don't know the bloke in this case but a youngish lady(girl) housing chief in Norwich was in charge of seeing
a refurbishment of some sheltered housing due to take place in 2 years time. So she issues all the elderly, notices to quit and they get moved over 2 weeks. Hey presto the whole housing dept move in including her boyfriend and a cat. They set their own rents at a rate that was described in the equivalent of the NWN but without typos as ridiculously low.
After much attempted justification she was sacked/resigned and I guess they will be demolished and some fancy rubbish starter homes built.

Heard on Radio Oxford that his driver has now resigned, and Stansfeld seeking advice whether he's entitled to another; any volunteers?

He may drive himself & wear a suitable hat & so become liable for coy car tax, which he presumably dodges under previous arrangement.

Perhaps next on his list will be a bodyguard, because of the hostility many have towards him

So, is he now driving a company car (even if it is a redundant TVP car) or has he invested in his own set of wheels. If it is the former, is he entitled to the full travelling allowance and where does the fuel come from. Not the TVP pumps I hope. Of course, he will declare all this to the taxman. Somehow however, I doubt we will ever know as he seems to have taken instructions from his party HQ on how to get round the expenses problems.

Me, if I had put myself forward for the job and was selected by my political party, I might have thought that I might move close to my place of work. I'm sure there would be supportive expenses claims for such a move. The downside for that might be that he would have to give up a lucrative payment for little effort as a WBC councillor. (£11,367 last year plus £187 for mileage. along with only 50% attendance at designated meetings for the last six months)

There is an article in this week's Newbury Weekly in which the happy news is that crime in the Thames Valley has fallen by 10.8 per cent. (page 8). The Chief Constable Sara Thornton gets a paragraph (33 words in fact) in which she tells us that it is due to the hard work of the force despite all the austerity cuts. Pat on the back Sara.

However, our PCC, Mr Stansfeld, gets five paragraphs in which he thanks all the officers and states how we will continue to work in partnership and how pleased he was that HMIC has recognised that the force has a plan in place and how he will be working with TVP to ensure that their policing requirements are met.

Excellent result, but hang on Mr Back Slapper, this is a comparison between '12 months up to March 2013' against the previous 12 months. I see this as totally down to the way the Chief Constable has been running the force. Correct me if I'm wrong but during that time span, the position of PCC didn't exist. So, in the best tradition of politicians when the news is good, get your name in the media. I bet there would have been a great deal of 'stepping back' if the reverse had been true

Very quiet on the declared expenses front. Nothing posted on the site since March.
http://www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk/Your-PC...d-Expenses.aspx

He is due to appear at the WBC offices for 'Policy, Planning and performance' a public meeting on 6th September at 10:30 - 12:30. (Poets day)