Khan Juna out of Thames Valley police commissioner election

The former chairman of the Thames Valley Police Authority has pulled out of the police and crime commissioner elections.



The question has to be ask, just how democratic and inclusive the Police & Crime Commissioners elections are, that are due to take place on 15th November, when someone who clearly has a great depth of knowledge and experience in policing issues, but has no party political backing has to withdraw from the election process as a result of funds?

The PCC programme has been railroaded through from within the Tory ranks of the Coalition Government without being tried and tested, and I cannot see how replacing the Police Authority (that currently contains political and independent members) with one politically influenced person is going to increase public confidence and participation.

As a former police officer, I am only too aware of the need for police reform, but the introduction of PCC's is in my opinion a retrospective step, and the outcome will be akin to the Chief Officer, in days gone by, having to ask to 'Lord of the Manor' for their (uneducated) opinion on policing matters.

Policing today is not as it once was a blue collar occupation, but requires its membership to be highly educated in criminology and criminal justice issues, motivated and professional. Replacing the Police Authority with someone who has limited or no understanding of policing or the criminal justice system, plus has no job specific qualifications, academic or otherwise, will lead either to, the Police & Crime Commissioner being overwhelmed by the advice of the highly skill senior police officers (all of whom, possess the former qualifications), and influenced totally by their opinions, or the total opposite, whereby the PCC, simply cannot be advised, for they know best, as they were allegedly elected by the people. In few cases do I foresee the middle way approach happening.

Hopefully, when the next Government is elected, and lets hoe that it is not a Tory one, they will be able to undo the damage done to our police service, and the rest of the public sector by the current Tories.

The whole PCC concept is a pile of pants regardless of politics. (Sadly, experience shows these things come from brainy people in the Home Office and they keep re-introducing the pet idea, regardless of the Party in government.) Neither party over the last 50-odd years has any claim to moral high ground on policing policy.
It will politicise policing to an extent previously unimagined. One of the first principles of Government is to keep the security services on-side. That can be done be being nice to them, or placing controls that ensure compliance. Often the latter is done with a kindly 'this will be good for everyone'.

A great shame independent candidates are finding it so hard to get to the ballot paper. Maybe there needs to be a support network led by some benevolent entrepreneur who will fund and support the campaigns.

Why we would want to politicise the Police force like this I've no idea. Best to fight crime on a legal basis and not out of popular politics.

'We' don't...............

The whole idea is a bad move but Its a great sadness that independents are stepping down. I should think he feels pretty lost at sea when a fellow member of the Police Authority is also standing - with his political party hat on, and already has his brand new shiny website and twitter account on which, incidentally, he is presumptuously naming himself @StansfeldPCC . Its a farce.

How can this be regarded as democratic. I know this wont happen but what would happen if nobody voted. I haven't had anything about any of the candidates yet posted through my letter box yet.

I just find it amzing that the Government are cutting Police budgets but can find money from somewhere to fund advertising for the PCC debacle!!!

The role of Thames Valley Police Commissioner, might, in the future gain in importance.

I would urge people to to vote. I would urge people to vote for whomsoever they feel is the best candidate.

I would also remind people that because he was 'conned' over the installation of the new CCTV gear, because under his watch they forgot to order the audio links, because under his watch although the recordings are better the pictures are worse and the zoom facility is now useless, and because under his watch the bad guys on the streets can get away with more, Councillor Stansfield has actually done more through his ineptitude and incompetence to make our streets unsafe than any other individual in W.B.C. in the last three years.

Please take that thought into the polling booth with you.

I don't rate the fella one bit, but Tony B Liars pet copper, Ian Blair was on radio today urging people not to vote at all. About the only time I have agreed with him.

If no-one votes there will be no mandate. In an area as diverse as Thames Valley (and others) one person cannot hope to understand the issues and promote activities.

I reckon any vote demonstrates support for a naff idea more than a naff candidate.

would this work in an election for Councillors etc. if no one or a tiny minority voted what would happen?
Interesting thought!

Spoilt ballot paper might be better alternative. Nothing rude, just strike through whole lot. Shows you care about democracy but not the party machines.

Sadly, if those of us who are not impressed by Mr Stansfeld choose not to vote at all, he still has enough support within his political party across the Thames Valley to ensure that even a small turnout will put him in role. No doubt you will soon get knocks at your door or flyers, singing his praises. A great big spin machine.

Sadly, there is no "I don't want an elected commissioner" vote. If you don't put a vote in then any extreme could get voted in. Think of the demographics that are likely to vote - would you want their views imposed through the police on you?

Also sadly, the outcome you warn about is almost guaranteed

Indeed.

Who are the 'extreme' candidates?

http://www.policeelections.com/candidates/thames-valley/

Indeed, but hasn't the current police head endorsed the latest CCTV, ****-ups and all?

That may be more to do with covering their backs than anything else.

I'm sure you'll remember the person (a WPC I think) who gave a speech in Hungerford in which she revealed that if it was dark or raining the cctv pictures were useless.

More recently we had the assault of a woman at the end of Parkway which happened right in front of the camera (in broad daylight) and yet no useful pictures were able to be obtained.

Sadly, the list goes on.

Just perusing some links up on 'the other forum' they are obviously from the 'Labour' perspective, but this Councillor does seem a little 'economical with the truth' somehow.

I have to say I knew little about him until all this. Will he resign from WBC if he gets this job?

Stansfeld Effect?

It is always valid to drill down into any claim of activity to examine what role the individual played. Being on a panel, even as Chairman, is no guarantee that individual made ant difference, let alone a positive one.

The problem is the Conservative bumpf will hold their candidate as the 2nd Messiah, all the others will deem him/her as the Spawn of Satan - purely because the Party alignment.

That will be beacuse CCTV is not an all seeing eye.

Certainly not here in Newbury.

Or anywhere....... Get used to it, unless the operator knows to look at something then if the camera is not looking that way it will no more see what is happening than if you were stood there yourself.
CCTV is partly used to replace police officers on patrol, but as they cannot hear, look around and then react to what is then seen, they will always be a poor substitute.

Do you think the CCTV upgrade and current monitoring system was a sensible idea and an improvement on the monitoring system we had before?

The CCTV technical upgrade made sense, but I do not know enough about the functionality of the monitoring system to judge.

While I am in the same boat as you, one of the complaints at the time was the possible loss of the service levels we had, so while the CCTV might have been poor quality, it was apparently a useful service which enable the monitoring station, police, and door men, to keep in contact. I have heard stories of the monitoring staff actually coordinating police movements on occasion. The feeling I get, and I could be wrong, is that the new outsourced system has wrecked the collaboration model of old.

In what way?



Talk to any of the 'old' coppers or ex-Security staff and they will agree with you that it was a mistake.

The 'cameras are not a be all and end all' brigade are of course right, however, they do not always equate like with like. Under our old system there were 4 cameras covering Parkway, so, in the example above, although one may not have caught the incident, there would have been a better chance of at least one of the others picking something up. 4 chances are better than 1.

From what I understand some 100+ cameras around W Berks were replaced by 40 or so higher quality cameras and the control moved from Newbury to Windsor.

Obviously 40 cameras could not cover everything 100 cameras could - so there was a definite loss of service in that manner.

Control room staff in Windsor would also be unfamiliar with W Berks characters, trouble makers etc and not have the rapport with the local police, bouncers etc. One would hope that they would, over time, develop the familarity and rapport. In theory this loss of service would be temporary.

The new cameras, being higher quality should improve the service in the area they cover.

Of course the bottom line was the massive cost savings.

It seems to me that the spin at the time 'no reduction in service, massive reduction in cost, haven't we done well'. Was a lie, service has been lost in areas that are no longer covered. I won't be voting for the man who headed this programme and set out to deliberately deceive me in this manner.

Who in their right mind would vote for someone that had been associated with the antics of our local council over the last few years especially if it has anything to do with controlling law and order - the mind boggles?

If his résumé is anything to go by, I don't see Geoff Howard getting very far.

Having voted in virtually every national, local and European election (when I have been able) to date, I think this one is going to be a first for me. And I shan't even feel guilty about it.

Wonder what a real post investment appraisal would demonstrate? You know, cost of crime without cameras v cost with.

Try requesting information on how many times the new CCTV system has assisted in conviction of crimes as opposed to the old system! You will not get an answer but I am able to assure you that the new system may just as well be switched off for all the assistance it has offered.

Think you are absolutely right!

Have you made an official request?

Yes! The reply was they do not keep that information on record!!!!

IOW - an utterly inept solution. Well done Newbury.

If you are keen to find out more and ask some questions of the Police and Crime Commissioner candidates seek out their Facebook accounts.

I have been posing some questions to Mr Stansfeld, but sadly he seems not willing to respond. If he is not willing to answer questions now, what on earth will he be like if he is voted in.

Remember that one of the alleged reasons for the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners is to improve public engagement.

So allegedly was community policing!

Possibly now is the time for the UK to introduce a 'none of the above' option for people to select.

Where is that 'LIKE' button?

I have to agree with you, my most unwanted candidate would be the Thames Valley Conservative but I see this whole change in policing as a reason for the politicians to get their fingers into the pie. I know that our police forces have to toe the political line but this one man control is a step too far in my opinion.

On the surface, the power that this person wields is not healthy. Can he/she really sack the chief constable and how does a person with possibly little knowledge of the police and their methods fit into the equation.

The danger might be if an extreme left wing candidate was able to get the position. That could happen if a group organised its resources and voters, especially if there is a large apathy non vote

We seem to be stuck with this Westminster derived policy so quite right that the ballot paper should give us the opportunity to veto the whole thing. It might rock the foundations if that happened. But it won't, vanity projects get pushed through no matter what.

Or extreme Right Wing - Or even worse a Newbury Councillor!

We'll all be arrested for being "vexatious"

Oh no does this mean I will be Kirby'd?

The candidates in the Thames Valley area are:

Patience Tayo Awe is an independent candidate with a "passion for volunteering and serving the community".

An IT post-graduate, she has worked in various sectors and has also served as a charity trustee.

If elected, she wants the public to help set local policing priorities and give victims of crime a voice "with the hope of transforming painful memories into powerful motivators and sources of strength".


Barry Cooper wants police cuts to come from the top down
UKIP candidate Barry Cooper graduated with a masters degree in history and currently works at his family-run luxury furniture business in London.

The 35-year-old admitted he has no professional experience within law enforcement but said expertise can be brought into a team and it is the ideas, common sense and willingness to reform he can bring to the table.

He promises to lobby against further budget cuts to the Thames Valley force and ensure funds are spent in the right places, with any cuts coming from "vanity projects" and the top down.


Geoff Howard wants people to help determine local police priorities
Geoff Howard is a Slough-based businessman, magistrate, school governor and former borough councillor of 13 years.

He wants to be the voice of the people and represent the interests of the community.

The Independent candidate hopes to make the role accountable to the public at a time where police forces are having to manage efficiency savings placed upon them by central government.


John Howson said he knows what it feels like to be a victim of crime
Prof John Howson, who is the Liberal Democrat candidate, has been a magistrate for 22 years as well as being a former government advisor, businessman and academic.

He has experienced crime as the victim of a classroom stabbing as a teacher, experienced four burglaries and been involved in two road accidents.

Prof Howson said he knows what it is like to be a victim of crime and believes too much crime is linked to addictions. He believes stopping reoffending is the key to keeping police budgets down.


Anthony Stansfeld had a long career in the Army
Conservative members across the Thames Valley selected executive member of West Berkshire Council, Anthony Stansfeld, as their candidate.

The councillor also sits on the Thames Valley Police Authority. Mr Stansfeld saw active service in Borneo and Northern Ireland during a career in the Army before becoming managing director at an aircraft company.

He said he would focus on reducing rural crime and improving household burglary detection rates.


Tim Starkey left the Liberal Democrat party over "broken promises"
As a barrister for 11 years, Tim Starkey has prosecuted and defended in hundreds of trials, including a number of high-profile human trafficking cases.

A previous Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate, he left the party in protest at their "broken promises" and the government's "reckless programme of cuts".

His key policing priorities include putting victims first and fighting budget cuts. Mr Starkey also wants to stop police privatisation, create a more effective service and keep decision making local.

(Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19503420)

The choice is yours, but if you do not vote, then we may all end up with someone who is either clueless and is lead by the nose; someone who thinks that they know everything, and tries to drive an agenda that is not evidenced based and doomed to failure; or hopefully we end up with someone who is able to stand back, observe and hear what is needed and works effectively with the operational staff to deliver a more equitable, efficient and high quality service with diminishing funding to the citizens of this area.

why cluless? I wasn't aware that past experience was a pre-requisite for such posts.

The only qualification required for most public office - Parliament, Council, Etc. is usually the right background - or school tie?

Care to back that up with some facts?