Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: gel May 11 2013, 10:28 PM

Well the good news is he stopped the sham office scam, but the hired driver keeps
costs the same.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323088/85-000-crime-tsar-used-sham-office-hike-expenses-6-000-cent-hes-Police-Commissioner-hire-chauffeur-drive-work.html

Complain to your Tory MP; probably no point

Posted by: blackdog May 12 2013, 07:32 AM

I see he has a staff of 13.

And this is saving us money?

Posted by: On the edge May 12 2013, 08:33 AM

You couldn't make this up could you! Pretty clear that in spite of all the whitewash the Tories have learned no lessons in probity or integrity.

I wonder if his 13 staff have to pay their own fares to get into work; or what would happen to them if they tried a scam like this? Suspect he'll come out with the usual old b******** about being able to work whilst being driven. I've never yet met anyone who could properly concentrate on papers or PC screens in the back of a car, even a posh one.

Complain to our MP? Hasn't he noticed? Hasn't the local Tory High Command noticed? Of course, but we really are all in this together. Gone are the days when parties properly exercised some degree of discipline on its nominees. And they've got the nerve to call UKIP clowns.

Well, they can do without my vote ever again.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2013, 08:55 AM

Assuming the story is true, and I'd like to think our news hungry local paper's hounds will be on to this one, don't blame the person, blame the sheep like idiots that vote for them.

Posted by: On the edge May 12 2013, 10:09 AM

In some ways you are right; gullibility of electorate. As to not blaming the individual; sorry but we can and rightly. He is a senior Tory and an elected Councillor. He will know the issue with this sort of scam. It's exactly the same as MPs expenses. If we can't blame him or his like, then there is no point in voting - full stop. It's quite amazing that Trading Standards will come down like a ton of bricks on any commercial organisation making misleading statements or impressions; but apparently not so for their political masters! And we are expected to respect law and the spirit of the law.

Untrue? Do you know something the Daily Mail's brief doesn't?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2013, 10:39 AM

Before condemnation, it is wise to treat everything you read with a pinch of salt and to give the protagonist the opportunity to reply.

Posted by: On the edge May 12 2013, 10:48 AM

Really? Bet there are a few MPs who wished their constituents were all like you. The protagonist has had ample opportunity to explain himself; like when the original staff issue cropped up. First it was one, now 13? Have you seen his explanation anywhere?

Posted by: Cognosco May 12 2013, 11:04 AM

Yes but remember councillors MP's etc do not have the time to read silly little forums like this they are far too busy! Those sort of people have to find ways to stop the dreadful lazy plebs that are fiddling the welfare system you know? I just wonder what all the NHS employees think of this as rather a lot of them have to travel rather long distances after the rather costly reshuffle of organisation within it. Although they will get a travel allowance for extra miles they may perhaps request a car and driver now as well....just wonder what would be thought of that. Still with only a measly £85.000 a year salary you have to be sympathetic and see why he would need to find loopholes in the expenses system to bolster the income! With today's modern way of working I would have thought it would be easier working from home rather that traveling to Hungerford then to Kiddlington. I wouldn't be surprised if the common or garden PC would think it would actually improve their lot if he was not employed at all? Not to mention the saving to the taxpayer.

Posted by: On the edge May 12 2013, 11:54 AM

Absoluley!

Posted by: blackdog May 12 2013, 01:24 PM

Surely this is an inevitable result of the whole system of elected commissioners - it's not really about fiddling a few hundred quid on expenses - it's about giving one man a big salary and the power to build an empire. Soon he believes he's too important, too busy to drive to his office and that he is justified in spending £20k of taxpayers cash on a driver and appropriating a car for his use. I wonder how much of the increase of the police budget that he decided we should pay is going on the salaries of him and his staff?

A year ago there was no need for the office, let alone the driver to take the commissioner to work. Local councillors on the Police Committee were not the perfect control system, but surely it was no worse than putting one politically motivated chap in charge.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 12 2013, 05:14 PM

Have you?




...exactly.


All I'm saying is that I am not going to take anything I read in the press as being the full and complete truth.

Posted by: On the edge May 12 2013, 06:54 PM

That's a truism. Very few people do. What now do you need? After all if we wait until all the evidence was 100% in any endeavour, we'd never do anything.

Posted by: Cognosco May 12 2013, 07:51 PM

Still this just shows there is no a lot wrong with our privatised railways as the PCC gravy train has sped through without any delays. Funny how Beeching never cut the infrastructure to the gravy trains eh?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 12 2013, 08:42 PM

I'm with AC here - I'm not going to take the Daily Mail's word on any of this as I know how they can twist and distort the facts to titillate the indignation of their readers, but just as you say, nothing more ever happens, and whatever the truth that's not healthy. If the PCC has acted prudently and the 13 staff thing is some mischievous re-casting of some pre-PCC function then we'll never get to know that but the public faith in the PCC and more broadly the Police Service as a whole will be dented and our cynicism will increase. If on the other hand the PCC has acted dishonestly and the PCC function has grown like topsy for not proportionate benefit then we'll never get to know the truth of that either and, as before, our faith diminishes and our cynicism grows.

So either way, we're more miserable than we were before we read the Daily Mail. I'll fetch the handcart...

I've probably said it before, but what we need is open accountable local government, so that we can have confidence that investigations will turn up wrong-doing and perps will be held to account, but also so that false accusation will be shown to be false and so our confidence in our public institutions will grow. I believe that to get there we (forumistas, and Newbury generally) need to be taking an active interest in our local government, and I think the best chance of us doing that is by working together. If anyone's interested, PM me.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 12 2013, 08:42 PM

Posted by: Exhausted May 12 2013, 09:20 PM

As you say, one of the first things that he did once he had taken office was to increase the police precept by 4%. Enough to cover all his expected extravagances I suppose.

Posted by: On the edge May 13 2013, 05:39 AM

No issue with that. Right now though, we can only work with what we have. Like markets, real democracy relies on a free and disinterested information - something that lets us down badly today. We are only told what will sell papers - which gives both the source and the press the chance to manipulate.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 13 2013, 09:25 AM

But this is not any endeavour, I'm just not going to condemn without hearing the 'defence'. Until then it is a conditional opinion, which I have already given.

Posted by: On the edge May 13 2013, 10:49 AM

Fair enough, but I'm not convinced we'll ever hear a defence.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 13 2013, 11:20 AM

Nor am I! I just want to been seen to being fair and avoid having to eat my words later!

Posted by: On the edge May 13 2013, 01:08 PM

You know me by now Andy!! Fair? Humble Pie is OK, preferably with chips.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2013, 12:09 PM

What I'd also like to know is how the cost of the commissioner's office compares to that which it replaced.

Posted by: gel May 14 2013, 01:10 PM

And the Cumbria Commissar is also creating work for the police to stop leaks on his expenses: (which I thought were in public domain?)
ie

'The Cumbria police and crime commissioner Richard Rhodes apologised today for failing to check the near £700 cost before hiring a chauffeur-driven Mercedes to go to two evening engagements - but defended his actions over the expenses row.

Cumbria Police searched one property and arrested three people, two of them civilian workers for the force, after the cost of the car hire was leaked to the local press. All three are on police bail.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cumbria-police-commissioner-apologises-for-cost-of-chauffeurdriven-car-but-defends-action-over-alleged-whistleblowers-8580731.html

Obviously not covered by Whistleblowers charter either. Perhaps he'll use a Paddywagon next time!

Posted by: Exhausted May 14 2013, 04:19 PM

Are the PCC's expenses covered by the official secrets act then so that we are never to be able to discover what is being spent in the name of the taxpayer.

I'm sure there must be some type of internal audit which should highlight such an exorbitant and careless waste of public money but would the figure ever appear in the public arena or would it be muddled up with other expenditure.

The people who have been elected to these posts are mostly supported by a political party and it is perhaps something in their makeup as politicians that makes them believe that they are outside the normal rules. You would have thought that the MP's expenses scandal might have rung a warning bell or two but it seems not. At the best it is pure arrogance at its worst......well, make up your own mind!

Posted by: blackdog May 14 2013, 04:47 PM

This would indeed be interesting - but, to be fair, we also need to understand what he is delivering that wasn't being done before (if anything).

Posted by: Exhausted May 14 2013, 05:22 PM

If you want to look at the Thames Valley PCC's revenue budget, look no further (See page 15)

http://www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk/Document-Library/Budget-book-2013-14-(1).pdf

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 14 2013, 06:16 PM

One factual error I think I see in the Mail report is this:

I may be wrong, but I don't believe the Revenue have any rules about what business mileage an employee can claim back from her employer. They have rules about taxing business mileage allowances, but the Revenue don't stop you claiming a mileage allowance from your employer for a journey to work, it's just you'll have to pay tax on it.

So there's a question then about whether there was some tax evasion going on, but there's also a question whether the employer's rules for claiming business mileage were bent by designating a local office, and if they were bent who was complicit in their bending. I'm not taking a view on whether there has been any impropriety and I'm not accepting as true anything that the Mail alleges, I'm simply clarifying the questions that I believe the news story raises.

Posted by: Ron May 14 2013, 07:23 PM

I think you will find that the Revenue DON'T allow a milage/travel expense claim from home to place of work.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2013, 07:40 PM

I believe Simon is right. If your employer pays for you to drive to your normal place of work, you will be taxed (and NI) as if you have earned the money, viz, no tax relief beyond the statutory.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/relief-travel.htm

http://www.freeagent.com/central/employee-travel-expenses

Posted by: On the edge May 14 2013, 08:23 PM

Treated as a benefit in kind. Very few employers actually do this, it only really has any effect when there has been a compulsory relocation, then for a fixed period. My biggest beef isn't that he's done that, it was the subterfuge of using an accommodation address to make the thing legitimate. Just the sort of wheeze Starbucks and Googles accountants have recently been roundly castigated for.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 14 2013, 08:34 PM

Yes, you can take the man out of the political party, but you cannot take the political party out of the man (it seems). I think Commissioner Stansfield should make a statement on the affair.

Posted by: On the edge May 14 2013, 09:03 PM

In violent agreement AC!!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 14 2013, 09:05 PM

Defo.

Posted by: dannyboy May 14 2013, 09:06 PM

Called taking candy from kids in some places.

Posted by: On the edge May 15 2013, 04:46 AM

Yeah - inappropriate turn of phrase. These were all return orders and I can now see we should have refused to supply on the basis that no one in the public sector can be trusted with a cheque book.

Posted by: blackdog May 15 2013, 09:14 AM

How can the Revenue stop home to work mileage claims? They may well opt to treat it as pay for tax purposes - making it very different from expenses, but what law stops a company paying for mileage if they wish to take the tax hits.

Posted by: blackdog May 15 2013, 09:53 AM

It seems the relevant info is on page 14.

There is a section on 'PCC Controlled expenditure' split into four lines and costed for 2012/13 (pre PCC costs? or part year?) and 2013/14.

'Office costs' rise by a mere £50k - to £1.15M.
'Democratic representation' falls from £340k to £187k - presumably this is the falling costs related to not having a police committee anymore?
'Other costs' fall £50k to £322k - no idea what this covers.
'Commissioning services' is the big one - rising from £0 to £3.5million - WTF?

So the PCC is costing us over £5 million - value for money?

They do break down these costs on page 15 - but I can't see Stansfield's pay - surely he is not considered under 'Police Staff Pay'?

Democractic Representation and Other costs need to be looked at together -between them they show the costs of interaction with member authorities (the old police committee and current scrutiny system). Savings seem to have been spent employing police staff?

The 'Commisioning Services' are there as 'Custody costs'?????? and 'Collaboration payments' of £2.87million????

Clear as mud.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2013, 10:47 AM

The illusion of transparency.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 15 2013, 12:48 PM

He is clearly value for money, given his apparent role in a major investigation

http://www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk/News-and-Events/News-Archive/2013/Bullfinch-Statement-from-the-Police-and-Crime-Commissioner.aspx

Posted by: Andy Capp May 15 2013, 01:09 PM

How do you come to that conclusion?

Posted by: pbonnay May 15 2013, 05:38 PM

But who is in the wrong? The over-indulged kid with too much candy or the scheming adult who takes it from him?

Posted by: MontyPython May 15 2013, 05:55 PM

I don't think the option of lets have no PCC was on the voting form. Had it been I believe the turn out would have been higher.

As it is it's another case of move on down the trough, rather appropriate given some peoples nickname for the police!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 15 2013, 06:10 PM

WTF is right. Is this what Dave's Big Society was meant to look like, because it looks just like the Big Fat State to me.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 15 2013, 10:21 PM

Well, clearly he has so much wisdom and vision.........



(not)

Posted by: Andy Capp May 16 2013, 12:54 AM

Ah! Irony!

Posted by: Newbelly May 16 2013, 12:31 PM

I agree that he should be given the opportunity to respond to the allegation, and if he has acted honestly, then he has nothing to fear from an investigation.

But is does look a bit like 'snout in trough'...

Posted by: Andy Capp May 16 2013, 01:05 PM

He has the full support of his party colleagues and he has made a statement in the NWN refuting the 'allegations'. He uses the offices in the interests of securing documentation and has a car and part-time chauffeur to maximise his time on the road with reading and phoning. A monitoring officer reviews his claims and he is confident that the Crime Panel with endorse the use of the car.

Posted by: Newbelly May 16 2013, 01:08 PM

Thank you. I will read it tonight with interest!

Posted by: blackdog May 16 2013, 01:10 PM

No one is preventing him from responding. I notice he was inviting the press to come and see him about Op Bullfinch - I wonder if any reporter bothered? If they did was he asked about his expenses and driver?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 16 2013, 01:16 PM

^^^

He has the full support of his party colleagues and he has made a statement in the NWN refuting the 'allegations'. He uses the offices in the interests of keeping correspondence and documentation secure, and has a car and part-time chauffeur to maximise his time on the road with reading and phoning. A monitoring officer reviews his claims and he is confident that the Crime Panel will endorse the use of the 'spare' car.

Posted by: Exhausted May 16 2013, 04:36 PM

Sorry you are correct of course I misread the page number.

Posted by: gel May 16 2013, 07:46 PM

Perhaps he has sights set on Westminster, where they are all experts at er milking the system shall we say!

Posted by: blackdog May 16 2013, 10:16 PM

No - you were quite correct - outline on p14, detail (ish) on p15.

Posted by: Sherlock May 17 2013, 06:49 AM

The whole episode stinks of the MPs expenses scandal. He 'simply can't function' without an office nearby? My ****. But my guess is we ain't seen nothin yet. The real money is to be made in the mass privatisation of the police

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/20/g4s-chief-mass-police-privatisation

Let's hope the press keeps a close eye on who gets the contracts, particularly if friends and relatives of our shifty PCC have a stake in the companies involved.

Despite all the talk of austerity this shower are very keen on shifting taxypayers' money into their own pockets.

Posted by: Sherlock May 17 2013, 07:05 AM

Anthony 'Dodgy' Stansfield certainly can't be accused of underestimating his own abilities.

He told no less an organ that the Witney Gazette:

“I am extremely good value for money. If I could hire myself I would charge a lot more.“

It's worth noting that one of the ways that MPs attempt to justify their own abuse of expenses is that they think they're worth a lot more than they are paid. http://goo.gl/gQoX3

Presumably Commissioner Stansfield is so impressed by his own performance that he spends a good deal of his precious time gazing at the sun shining from his own backside. I've only seen him in action - at WBC meetings - a couple of times but he came over, as his quote confirms, a supremely arrogant piece of work. He also seemed deeply unpleasant but I'm sure somebody loves him.

http://matthewsdent.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/thames-valley-police-commissioner-proves-me-right/

http://www.witneygazette.co.uk/news/wgheadlines/witney/10414718.I_m_not_fiddling_expenses_says_police_and_crime_commissioner/?ref=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

This really is a disgrace, though. We pay this joker £85,000 a year - why can't he drive himself to work in his own car and pay the costs out of his own inflated salary? Surely he must have a study in his own home if he really must have an office nearby? If other public servants behaved like this he and his kind would be amongst the first to scream blue murder at them.

Posted by: pbonnay May 17 2013, 09:47 AM

I find Commissioner Stansfeld's justification for his local office requirement a little hard to accept.

There are many people who have an office at home, or need access to sensitive hard documents at home, and the answer is to install a safe, get a decent shredder and have an alarm system. If access to a secure IT system is required, then there are many technologies and solutions available including secure VPN and use of encryption on storage media.

If material is so sensitive as to make the above inadequate, then surely it should not be leaving TVP HQ premises in the first place?

Posted by: ivan i May 17 2013, 01:29 PM

Are people on this forum trying to emulate the poor spelling and grammar of the NWN?
The gentleman's name is STANSFELD not STANSFIELD !!

Posted by: pbonnay May 17 2013, 02:42 PM

My apologies. In my post, I took the spelling of the name from the title of the thread. Now my post corrected.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 17 2013, 03:20 PM

If anyone was really interested I imagine it would be a simple thing to request a copy of the CPP's entries in the Hungerford Police Station in/out log, to see if he was indeed using the Hungerford office more than the Police HQ and wasn't simply checking in and out as alleged.

Of course there might be genuine security reasons for the CPP having an office in a local Police Station, but that in itself doesn't make the local office his reporting base for the purposes of his qualification for travel expenses and tax exemption. I find it difficult to see how the head of the Commission can suggest that his substantive base is not in the same HQ building as the large team that he is employed to lead.

It would be interesting to see quite how often the CPP used the Hungerford office at weekends as he implied he did. I feel that out-of-hours and weekend working is poor practice and symptomatic of ineffectiveness. The CPP does not have an operational role so I can't see what minor emergencies could arise that would be serious enough for him to need to go into the local office at a weekend but not so serious that he didn't have to go to the HQ where his team work.

I also don't understand how he now gets to be chauffeured around in a company car which I'm guessing (though it's not stated explicitly) is all provided for him gratis. If he has now closed the local office (which I think I read) then isn't his travel arrangement to the office again his own responsibility? Obviously, if he wants to hire a chauffeur and pay for a company car then that's up to him, but the cost is his is it not?

The suggestion that his relatively modest 45 minute commute takes too much time out of his working day is bogus - his working day starts when he gets to the office! If he doesn't want a 45 minute commute he could always move nearer to his work. Resignation is also an option.

Posted by: pbonnay May 17 2013, 04:14 PM

I would have thought that the designated place of work and issues regarding travel, security of documents, use of premises and access to IT would be agreed in a contract of employment, or at the very least properly thought through before such a position is advertised and accepted.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 17 2013, 05:00 PM

Other than taking Commissioner Stansfeld's account in good faith, what I find objectionable, is the arrogance. He thinks it is political mischief; so what? The other pet hate is Richard Benyon's 'it's a non-story' remark. If I was his press officer and bearing-in-mind the state of the nation's finances, let alone locally, I would have use more sympathetic language. Something like: 'we understand people's concern but we can assure you...' sounds a lot better than: 'it's a non-story'. I think the tax payer should be the one's to judge that!

Posted by: Exhausted May 17 2013, 08:14 PM

Having also seen the man in action I have to agree with your assessment. As to your last statement, is he married.?

Posted by: gel May 18 2013, 02:49 PM

Cllr Stansfeld was not amused at fellow Councillor's actions:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22569197

Posted by: Sherlock May 18 2013, 03:00 PM

Agreed. I'm afraid it's just another symptom of the overweening arrogance of our current political leaders. They have a veneer of charm (even this is missing in Stansfield's case) their world view is, deep down, based on the idea that most of us are oiks and should be treated with contempt.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 18 2013, 04:45 PM

Well posted gel. I have sent a message of thanks and support to Cllr Harvey - if anyone else wants to do the same you can contact him via this page: http://www.buckingham-tc.gov.uk/whoarewedetails/north_cllrs/jon_harvey.html

Posted by: Exhausted May 18 2013, 08:34 PM

Excellent response which must have irritated Mr Stansfeld.
Good one.

Posted by: MontyPython May 19 2013, 07:46 AM

How many people realised when voting, that when they saw Stansfeld (Con) that the wording inside the brackets was his intent rather than his party?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 19 2013, 12:33 PM

The story gel referenced says there is to be an independent review of his expenses claims. I wonder who the review will be conducted by. HMRC also need to take a view on what's going on because even if it turns out that the PCC is entitled to be chauffeured to work at our expense that benefit in kind may well be taxable along with the expenses claims - though I'm guessing this isn't an issue until the PCC submits his tax return.

Posted by: blackdog May 19 2013, 12:44 PM

Posted by: pbonnay May 19 2013, 04:42 PM

To that, I would include the behaviour of many who hold senior positions in our public services (e.g. BBC and local authorities). After yet another scandal where people have suffered, I am sick and tired of hearing "we will learn the lessons.." etc. We do not pay these people such huge salaries for them to be on a learning curve. They are meant to be the top people in their field, experienced and competent.

Posted by: Roost May 19 2013, 05:30 PM

While I do agree with you, not every scenario can be foreseen and if one is at the enviable position where one can know and can foresee everything then I hear there may be a space or two available in the godhood...

People are people and mistakes will always be made. The test comes from learning from and not repeating them.

Posted by: Cognosco May 19 2013, 05:38 PM

They are..... at getting what they want from the system. Why do you think they want HS2.... so that the gravy train speeds their arrival at the trough? You should have realised by now that cuts only happen to us plebs not to those in a position to take advantage of their positions. Just like companies that make billions from Britain but pay very little tax......why because that is the way that politicians made it possible of course? Expenses scandal what expenses scandal? Move along nothing to see here!

Posted by: NWNREADER May 19 2013, 05:39 PM

Not a universal practice, it seems - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-22583855

Posted by: pbonnay May 19 2013, 05:59 PM

In relation to "new" issues, such as those caused by the relentless march of technology, e.g. Internet-based social media, I take your point.

But in instances such as those involving vulnerable youngsters being abused, I think the risks could have been foreseen. Indeed, we know that concerns were reported and yet the abuse went on for years.

Posted by: gel May 19 2013, 09:19 PM

Stansfeld defends poor performance:
'POLICE and crime commissioner Anthony Stansfeld yesterday backed his Chief Constable, claiming other forces across the country had also failed victims of child sex gangs.

Mr Stansfeld said he would not call on Sara Thornton to resign as child sex exploitation was a problem across the country.'
The 43 reported Oxford offences OK then?
Neither is the Oxon Council CEO, Joanne Simons on £200k falling on her
sword.
I see she even gets extra pay when she has to act as a returning officer; unbelievable.
The fact that these 2 senior officials are female makes their unaccountability even more unacceptable, considering who the victims were over 6 years.

Posted by: pbonnay May 20 2013, 08:00 AM

Quite.

I heard a spokesman for the NSPCC on the radio last week. Unbelievably, he seemed to be more worried about being politically correct than tackling these paedophile gangs. I think our agencies have completely failed here and those in senior positions should be properly held to account.

Posted by: motormad May 20 2013, 09:42 AM

Everyone is worried about being politically correct, especially with people out there (like many on this forum) who will take pops at anyone over almost anything they said.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 20 2013, 09:49 AM

At least we have you to throw a rational calming influence over those topics!

Posted by: On the edge May 20 2013, 01:20 PM

I think the Chief Constable has done a brilliant job - she's managed to get her very own private trades union representative appointed, full time!

Posted by: NWNREADER May 23 2013, 08:12 PM

Oh dear, is the master plan unravelling?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22636857

Posted by: Sherlock May 24 2013, 01:03 PM

'Ministers are failing to properly monitor the salaries and professional standards of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs), MPs have warned.'

Surprise surprise. Given the ongoing expenses scandal, their failure to monitor their own standards and their intention to take at least another £10,000 a year out of our pockets - see the litany of greed and deception here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/ - it was entirely predictable that Ministers would ignore troughing by place-men like Stansfield. They will milk the job for all it's worth, hand out contracts to their chums then move on, no doubt having collected a gong or two, to suck even more cash out of taxpayers elsewhere. Rank hypocrisy from what is easily the most self-serving government we've ever seen.

It would be easy to become cynical.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2013, 01:11 PM

Not wanting to detract from the PCC's issue, but I find it a bit rich of Keith Vaz to criticise when the Torygraph says http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5298267/Keith-Vaz-75000-for-a-flat-12-miles-from-home.html.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 24 2013, 09:14 PM

"Show me an honest political"

Posted by: Turin Machine May 24 2013, 09:15 PM

Oops, double post.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 25 2013, 10:09 AM

How very dare you! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/10061813/Corrupt-No.-So-why-are-we-MPs-victims-of-such-outrageous-abuse.html

Posted by: Turin Machine May 25 2013, 11:46 AM

Sorry, had to duck just then, a flight of pigs came over.

Posted by: Exhausted May 25 2013, 11:48 AM

It appears, that if we don't like our Police Commisar, then we can remove him. How do we do that, we vote him out at the next election.

In the meantime, we're stuck with him. When is the next election and when it happens, will the general public have the information to enable them to understand what and who they are voting for. Why the post should be supported by a political party escapes me though.

Posted by: Exhausted May 25 2013, 11:55 AM

Exactly, and this poor MP wonders why the general public are very anti politicians. Same newspaper and some of the silly expense claims made. I wish I could claim for my toilet paper holder, armchair or dog food and I bet you do to.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/mps-expenses-in-pictures/6790519/MPs-expenses-the-most-bizarre-claims.html

Posted by: gel May 26 2013, 01:54 PM

Cllr/Commissar Stansfeld obviously feels he is totally right whatever decision falls from his mouth, be it an office between his home & TVP HQ in Kidlington being essential, or the doubtful need for an assistant / driver; clearly doesn't like his decisions being subject to public scrutiny by commoners & now an independent audit.
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/independent-audit-for-pccs-expenses

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 03:50 PM

That really is a great response, thanks for posting it. In effect, he is saying he applied for a job, with a published salary and work location. Once he'd started, he found he couldn't cope! The right course of action is for him to resign on the basis that the job is too much for him. Sad really, but that';s how some people are. Of course, if I was a cynic, I might just wonder why the idea that the travelling was too much only arose when the Chief Constable questioned his home / office expenses claim!

Posted by: Exhausted May 26 2013, 04:30 PM

He knew when he put himself forwards for the job that his residence was Kintbury and his place of work would be the Thames Valley police headquarters in Kidlington.
That said, once his travelling expenses were uncovered, the possible ruse to employ a driver and use a car belonging to TVP begs three questions. Firstly, who pays for the fuel used backwards and forwards to Kintbury both for him when he is in the car and for his driver who has to go and pick him up. Does he come down from Kidlington I wonder. Secondly who pays for the insurance on the car. He is not as far as I know an employee of TVP therefore there must be an annual cost. Thirdly who pays for the maintenance on such a high mileage Audi. That won't be be cheap based on the mileage he is clocking up home to work.
I cannot believe that the Conservative party put forward a man who lives on the very edge of the Thames police area without some commitment that he would move closer to his place of work.
The job was going at the time of the almost unannounced election so no problem with him taking such a highly paid job, especially for a person whose income appeared to be only that of a WBC councillor at the time but fairs fair and there is no need to bite the hand that feeds.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2013, 04:45 PM

I understand from the report that the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel's complaints sub-committee has commissioned an independent report into the expenses on the strength of having received a formal complaint.

I would like to know who made the complaint, but I would particularly like to know which members of the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel didn't make a complaint! It is not at all clear that the official complaint was made by a Panel member, and we rely on the Panel to ensure fair play. More than that, the issue was raised by the Tax-Payer's Alliance, not by the Thames Valley Police and Crime Panel - so can we have confidence that any of them are executing their responsibility with due diligence? There is clearly enough of a sniff of impropriety for there to be an official independent investigation, but the Panel should have sussed that out themselves a couple of months ago without the need for the Tax Payer's Alliance to go snooping about.

So who's on this Panel thingy?

Posted by: Exhausted May 26 2013, 04:58 PM

Here's the list.

http://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/mgCommitteeDetails.aspx?ID=751

And this is their remit.

http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/overview_and_scrutiny/tvpcp.page#.UaI_DKKTiSp

and this is the complaint..

http://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/documents/s41199/PCC%20Report%20-%20Response%20to%20complaint.pdf

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2013, 05:33 PM

Thanks for that. Is it me, or does the PCC report evade the central issue, that the Hungerford office is alleged to be a sham so as to allow the PCC to claim travel expenses? The report says "The PCC’s use of the office at Hungerford over the short-term to date has not been as regular or extensive as originally anticipated. The Kidlington office will, therefore, continue to be the PCC’s main office." I don't think anyone is disputing that the Hungerford office is useful - face it, it would be daft to drive to Kidlington just to print off a confidential memo when it could be done in Hungerford - but the allegation as I understand it is that the Hungerford office was never expected to be the substantive base of the PCC's operations which was always going to be, and which is now admitted to have been, with his many staff in Kidlington. Isn't this the issue that the report should have addressed?

I assume that the independent audit will take a view on that?

http://ajustfuture.blogspot.co.uk/ where he keeps an eye on the PCC.

According to the blog the PCC is no longer using the Police Audi and is now only using his own car.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2013, 05:44 PM

Good questions all: I trust the independent audit will address them.

Posted by: On the edge May 26 2013, 08:38 PM

Well done Exhausted!

The telling point for me is the Chief Constable's comment that the Hungerford office is not used anywhere near as much as envisaged and the principle place of work is still Kidlington. Even if Independent Audit don't pick that up HMRC should. We come back to us paying his home to office mileage. Also, he seems to have picked up a second hand car from the force; wasn't the PCC supposed to be independent? That was the point of creating them in the first place wasn't it?

Posted by: blackdog May 26 2013, 08:53 PM

Loads of people commute further than Kintbury to Kidlington - I can't see why anyone should be expected to move when they already live so close.

However, I would expect them to be in the office, at their own expense at 9 or thereabouts and to work their for eight hours or so before driving themselves home. If he has to travel during the day to fulfil the requirements of the job then he could claim expenses or use a car supplied by his employer (whichever works out cheapest).

If he must work at home then, he doesn't need to have anything on paper at home - a secure connection and laptop would serve his needs.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2013, 09:20 PM

http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/local-news/i-m-not-prepared-to-do-this-job-and-drive-600-miles-a-week-police-chief-defends-expenses-and-chauffeur-1-5086153

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/10414718.I_m_not_fiddling_expenses_says_police_and_crime_commissioner/:


http://democracy.buckscc.gov.uk/documents/s41200/Expenses%20Complaint%20PCC%20Oral%20Statement%20to%20PC%20Panel.pdf to P&C Panel 17 May:

Posted by: blackdog May 26 2013, 10:26 PM

Why does he need to print documents? If he does so in Hungerford, presumably he then can't take them home because his house is insecure - perhaps he should just spend his working day in his office?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 27 2013, 09:40 AM

He seems to suggest that the problem isn't so much having the secure documents, it's just printing them in a busy corridor that's the security issue. That sounds lame to me. I never print stuff anyways, and if I have to go to a meeting with papers I have them all on the laptop. To be frank I'm surprised his house is so small that he doesn't at least have a desk in a spare room to work at if he needs some privacy, but whatever.

That said the use of a desk in the Hungerford police station sounds completely reasonable to me, I can imagine times when a local office would be very handy to work from, but the point at issue is that the Hungerford office was never going to be his main reporting base, that was always going to be where his staff worked in Kidlington, and he needs to address the complaint that he designated the Hungerford office as his reporting base simply to qualify for mileage allowance. He accepts that he didn't in fact use it as his main office.

What I particularly don't like in his office's written submission to the panel is this:

For an innocent error that might be appropriate, but he is accused of deliberately manipulating the rules by designating a sham office, and if the independent audit agrees with the complaint then for me that's a resignation issue because it would fundamentally undermine the public trust in his ability to scrutinise the police.

Posted by: newres May 27 2013, 10:25 AM

From what I have heard, the problem is endemic throughout the police force.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 27 2013, 01:41 PM

What problem might that be?

Posted by: Sherlock May 30 2013, 12:59 PM

I see our local Libdem parliamentary candidate has taken the bumptious, self-regarding and vain Mr Stansfield to task in the letter pages of the Newbury Weekly News for his incredibly wasteful attitude to public money.

She is quite right to stress that those who have to commute long distances and pay their own costs on much lower salaries will resent the fact our PCC tried it on by claiming he had to work from Hungerford rather than drive at his own expense and in his own time to work with the rest of his team.

But can someone please bring us up to date with the current situation? Are we still paying for him to be driven to work in one of the cars we bought for Thames Valley Police by a chauffeur also paid for by us? Or has he now been shamed into doing the decent thing?

Posted by: Turin Machine May 30 2013, 04:29 PM

These people have no shame.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 30 2013, 09:06 PM

Lots of info etc, but the http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/69/69.pdf
suggests Commissioner Stansfield may (by budget) be value for money.....

This too:
More than a third of police and crime commissioners are already costing the public more than the police authorities they were elected to replace last November, according to parliamentary research.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/police-crime-commissioners-cost

14 of the forces overspent the Police Authority previous year budget. The remainder either matched or reduced it. However, the 14 that overspent did so to such an extent that all of the forces combined have overspent to the tune of 2.81%, equating to £1.3million.

The Home Affairs Committee produced a report that shows who spent what. To see the full report click the link below.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/69/69.pdf

What they omitted to publish was the total expenditure and excess spend of the PCC's. We have taken the data and created a table to show the totals. Click the link below to see this.

http://bit.ly/11d0orF

To quote the 2010 Conservative Manifesto on Crime, Police & Justice:

We will introduce measures to make the police more accountable through oversight by a directly elected individual, who will be subject to strict checks and balances by locally elected representatives.
Nick Herbert MP, the former Policing Minister, appears to be the instigator of the Police & Ctime Commissioner concept, having first detailed the proposals in a Conservative Party briefing paper "Policing For The People".

The document makes interesting reading and Police Officers will find many of the issues they justifiably complain about having their roots in this document, in proposals made by Nick Herbert & Blair Gibbs (his former business partner at Policy Xchange).

The estimated first year costs for PCC's was in the region of £40million, a wishful saving of some £6million versus the prior year Police Authority spend. However, the PCC's have cost £48million. We will leave it for the reader to decide and for performance to reflect (if we can expect to see statistical probity!) if the money is well spent.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 2 2013, 02:26 PM

http://thinbluelineuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/all-aboard-police-commissioner-gravy.html
is interesting too....

Posted by: newres Jun 2 2013, 04:31 PM

Exploiting loopholes in expenses/creative accounting a la MPs and exploiting the overtime system.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 2 2013, 06:31 PM

You obviously have detailed knowledge of the situation. It is very much something Mr Stansfield would welcome hearing about. Please do pass on your knowledge as it would be an excellent public service to eliminate such waste.

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 2 2013, 07:05 PM

I wonder why the office of HM Inspector of Constabulary couldn't have encompassed the work which is now part of the remit of the PCC. I sense that the HMIC is a bit concerned about his loss of power within the policing structure especially when inspecting a police force, offering all sorts of candy to the PCC.

Like the NHS, I might believe that the whole thing is getting top heavy with extra layers of non productive management.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 2 2013, 08:59 PM

You are not alone. The whole thing smacks of political control. We used to ridicule USSR for having Party Officers in every organisation......

Posted by: Sherlock Jun 11 2013, 03:02 PM

Our man Stansfield is wriggling on the hook like a very wriggly thing that has a special reason to be particularly wriggly.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/pcc-rejects-criticism-over-failure-to-provide-personal-financial-details

He whinges about Vaz's committee's lack of 'common courtesy'. Anyone who saw this charming man in action as a local councillor may well feel this is somewhat hypocritcial! And has he never seen a select committee in action?

Given his apparent problem with transparency, and his obvious fondness for stretching rules to breaking point, I don't think he's cut out to be a civil servant. He should resign quietly rather than digging an even deeper hole for himself. Or perhaps he should take a dose of his own party's Big Society medicine and do the job on a voluntary basis. Surely he doesn't need the money? His military pension alone (also funded by us, of course) must go a long way to paying the bills.

Posted by: gel Jul 7 2013, 11:03 AM

Seems he has to repay a tiny amount following investigation; something still smells foul here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357655/Camerons-crime-tsar-claimed-money-commuting-work-forced-repay-travel-expenses.html

Hopefully Tax Man will cost him far more.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 7 2013, 01:08 PM

Surely he considered how he was to manage something as simple as getting to work?

Posted by: newres Jul 7 2013, 05:19 PM

A little birdy told me that what he did was no different to what many officers do with regard to nominating a local station as an office. There ought to be a widescale investigation.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 7 2013, 05:34 PM

It has been a lifetime since I had anything to do with offices,but some large HQs and stuff
operate Hot Desking. Judging by the complexion of the PCC I am surprised he did not nominate
The Dundas Arms as his office. (And I was chilly, and yes the dark haired barmaid was very good looking.)
ce

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 7 2013, 07:33 PM

Officers? Officers in which organisation(s)?

Posted by: newres Jul 7 2013, 08:14 PM

Take a wild guess.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 7 2013, 08:15 PM

Not a scoobie

Posted by: newres Jul 7 2013, 08:18 PM

Oh well. As my dad used to say, you can't educate pork. No pun intended.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 7 2013, 09:17 PM

Pun?
Too obtuse for me.

I just cannot see how an organisation (any) that tells an employee where their place of work is can then justify expense claims for travel in the way you infer.
If. for instance, your place of work was Market Street, Newbury, why would your employer allow you to say it was somewhere else?

Posted by: On the edge Jul 7 2013, 09:50 PM

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?

Posted by: newres Jul 8 2013, 06:06 PM

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.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 8 2013, 06:28 PM

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!

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 8 2013, 07:37 PM

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.

Posted by: newres Jul 8 2013, 08:00 PM

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

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 8 2013, 10:20 PM

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.

Posted by: newres Jul 9 2013, 01:39 PM

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.

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 9 2013, 03:37 PM

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?

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 9 2013, 08:55 PM

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.....

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 9 2013, 08:57 PM

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.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jul 9 2013, 09:25 PM

But at least he has submitted his report http://%5burl="http://bernardrix.com/2013/07/09/how-many-pccs-have-published-their-annual-reports/"]but is it any good?[/url]

Posted by: massifheed Jul 12 2013, 03:00 PM

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2013/expenses-overclaim-was-just-an-error-says-crime-commissioner

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

Posted by: On the edge Jul 12 2013, 05:02 PM

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

Posted by: MontyPython Jul 12 2013, 05:06 PM

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!

Posted by: Darren Jul 12 2013, 10:11 PM

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.

Posted by: Nothing Much Jul 13 2013, 10:42 AM

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.

Posted by: gel Jul 13 2013, 01:27 PM

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

Posted by: Exhausted Jul 13 2013, 02:46 PM

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)

Posted by: Exhausted Aug 3 2013, 12:02 PM

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

Posted by: Exhausted Aug 16 2013, 04:50 PM

Very quiet on the declared expenses front. Nothing posted on the site since March.
http://www.thamesvalley-pcc.gov.uk/Your-PCC/Allowances-and-Expenses/Allowances-and-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)

Posted by: gel May 29 2014, 07:17 PM

Shadowing a PCC programme tonight 29/5:

One in Kent, not our own beloved PCC!
This one seems to have inflated sense of own importance too, so some similarities

http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/479095/Meet-the-police-commissioner-Channel-4-exposes-Kent-PCC-Ann-Barnes

Posted by: Mr Brown May 30 2014, 04:50 PM

One thing though, the Police have been wanting their credibility restored and she does at least make them look intelligent.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 30 2014, 04:58 PM

Compared to what?

Posted by: blackdog May 30 2014, 05:13 PM

Her?

Posted by: gel May 30 2014, 07:09 PM

Looked totally out of her depth and is totally unqualified to interview for such senior roles, as was shown re Chief Constables position.

The local parish councillors wanting an audience with her re local policing (lack of it), were denied appointment, yet surely this should have been key part of her role.

Amazing that she advised no job description existed for these £85k roles-her salary + that of her oversized entourage better spent on policing.

Posted by: The Hatter May 30 2014, 08:30 PM

I just can't see why anyone with half a brain would have actually voted for her! All goes to prove that people only vote for established parties.

Posted by: pbonnay May 31 2014, 04:41 PM

I watched the programme and the PCC for Kent was at pains to point out she was an independent, who had funded her own campaign. It appeared she got a lot of support from her drama group though! I agree with gel that she looked at sea on some issues.

Posted by: Cognosco May 31 2014, 04:45 PM

That is just not on! Everyone knows these positions were created for jobs for the boys and to politicise the police!

Posted by: pbonnay May 31 2014, 05:01 PM

Yes, I too noticed she kept going on about "visible community policing" and was there to engage with the public and to hold the Chief Constable to account. Yet when a village community wanted to meet with her to complain about the loss of their local bobby, she refused to meet with them saying she could not get involved in "operational police matters"! That's a cop out.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 31 2014, 05:29 PM

Very good.

Posted by: Exhausted May 31 2014, 08:12 PM

Did you notice the pained look on the faces of the senior policemen when she was patronising them. You can bet that the Chief Constable was, it seemed to me, only too pleased to take early retirement as his only way of escaping her. Getting her lap dog to hand him a balloon was the icing on the cake. Good thing she was able to employ the sycophantic deputy CC into the role. That woman should never have been given the PCC role as she is totally inadequate for the job and unlike the policemen who have served their time as serving officers, has proved she has scant knowledge of the job and how to deal with people. We must recognise and so should the government that the position of PCC requires a person with the skills to warrant the salary of the job and the costs (expenses) that go with it. I cannot believe and neither did the reporter, how many people with grand titles were employed in her 'support' office.

I loved the style she used, reminiscent of a stand up comedian at a holiday resort, when she wasn't satisfied with the reply to her "Good morning" at one of her meetings.

I wonder if the authors of the PCC scheme were watching and thinking "Oh my gawd, what have I done ?"

Posted by: pbonnay May 31 2014, 08:26 PM

But if you were a victim of crime in Kent, and the police response was only a telephone call, would you not take comfort from the fact that senior police officers were being made to stand in silence to remember Nelson Mandela?

Posted by: gel May 31 2014, 08:29 PM

Wonder if our revered PCC thought to himself "The games up!".

Posted by: Exhausted Jun 1 2014, 08:39 AM

If you think about it, that is what she would have done with her class of nine year olds so no change there.

Posted by: On the edge Jun 1 2014, 09:02 AM

I suppose that's a good thing, with all that management 'happy happy' clap trap, she can't have been a brilliant teacher, so that's one less 1960s educational practitioner out of the way!