Commissioner Stansfield on the make (take?), Misuse of taxpayer money via sham Options

[gel]

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-23...drive-work.html

Complain to your Tory MP; probably no point

[blackdog]

I see he has a staff of 13.

And this is saving us money?

[On the edge]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

[On the edge]

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?

[Andy Capp]

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?

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

[On the edge]

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

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?

[Cognosco]

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?

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.

[On the edge]

Absoluley!

[blackdog]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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?

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.

[On the edge]

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.

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.

[Cognosco]

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?

[Simon Kirby]

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.

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.

[Simon Kirby]

Funny how Beeching never cut the infrastructure to the gravy trains eh?

[Exhausted]

. 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?

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.

[On the edge]

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.

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.

[Andy Capp]

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.

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.

[On the edge]

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.

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

[Andy Capp]

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

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