Police commissioners - did you vote?

[Barbirollians]

Yes but reluctantly . I think the idea is a complete waste of time and profoundly anti-democratic . A few self-important twits instead of a police authority drawn up from councillors of all political groups with a watching brief rather than a power to interfere .

My idea of a good PCC would be one who rang the Chief Constable up and said " get on with it and bother contacting me if you need my help with anything "

[Lateralthinking1]

"Great". It's just gone BNP - sorry, correction, independent zero tolerance - a quarter of a mile up the road.

Whether this means that cars will slow down from 60mph to the required 30mph on the boundary is very doubtful but woe betide if you place your empty corn flakes box in the wheelie bin. 6 months imprisonment probably.

[mangerton]

The view now of the average member of the public towards elected representatives is that you can't roller skate in a buffalo herd. Better to stay at home I think than to vote for a bunch of plastic chickens who couldn't organise a scaup scaup in a duck house.

Have duck houses (and moats, no matter how clean) not been banned now?

[mangerton]

The one whose second line is
Bobbies on bicycles two by two
which in itself seems to be a case of one rule for the cops and one for the rest of the nation's cyclists who are told not to cycle two abreast on the public highway - not that I've seen a police officer driving a bicycle for more years than I care to remember (which is hardly surprising since they're awfully awkward things on which to mount blue lights and less use than a chocolate teapot when chasing a stolen getaway Lamborghini)...

Yes indeed, though I rather think that in the 60s when that record was made cyclists could go two abreast in certain circs. I have a vague recollection of this as I did my cycling "proficiency" test in 61, and my driving test in 68.

[Lateralthinking1]

Have duck houses (and moats, no matter how clean) not been banned now?

Only for people who pay for them with their own money.

(Seriously, I would have thought that today represents an all time low for British democracy, wouldn't you? Somewhere between the abysmally pitiful and the absolute pits! If just two men and a dog voted someone in, our rulers would still be dreaming on.)

[Mary Chambers]

Just heard on the news that there were ten times more spoiled ballot papers than usual in an election, which says something.

[ahinton]

Only for people who pay for them with their own money.

Surely you mean only for people who try NOT to pay for them with their own money?(!) - although, even to the extent that they have been "banned", the move to do this has surely now been revealed as remarkably short-sighted, since the new police and crime commissioners will have nowhere to go to duck out of the issues for which they'#re supposed to be responsible - and surely that would never do, would it?(!)...

[ahinton]

Yes indeed, though I rather think that in the 60s when that record was made cyclists could go two abreast in certain circs. I have a vague recollection of this as I did my cycling "proficiency" test in 61, and my driving test in 68.

Sure, but that was then whereas the time of the police and crime commissioner is now!

[ahinton]

Just heard on the news that there were ten times more spoiled ballot papers than usual in an election, which says something.

Indeed it does - and one cannot help but wonder what these new people, being obviously only too well aware of having secured their positions on the backs of those handful of citizens who have not merely failed to spoil their ballot papers but also actually voted for them, must think of the level of public confidence that they'll be so woefully unable to inspire as they take up their new posts?

[Lateralthinking1]

Surely you mean only for people who try NOT to pay for them with their own money?(!)

Erm..........no actually.

Just heard on the news that there were ten times more spoiled ballot papers than usual in an election, which says something.

Quite.

.................................................. ............................Oh well! (big sigh)

[french frank]

"Great". It's just gone BNP - sorry, correction, independent zero tolerance - a quarter of a mile up the road.

Lat was in first. Yes, Surrey has elected the Zero Tolerance Policing candidate

You have been warned - stay away from Surrey ...

[MrGongGong]

Lat was in first. Yes, Surrey has elected the Zero Tolerance Policing candidate

You have been warned - stay away from Surrey ...

It really makes you think there should be an intelligence test before folk are allowed to vote !
One of the daft self publicists here was banging on about sentencing for repeat offenders ........ errrr I didn't think it was the post of Judge Dredd

[Lateralthinking1]

Lat was in first. Yes, Surrey has elected the Zero Tolerance Policing candidate

You have been warned - stay away from Surrey ...

I think that this is a hellish result which could only be the direct consequence of low turnout. That in turn has occurred on a day when our main electoral processes have been damaged by a foolhardy experiment.

I am not wholly against zero tolerance where priorities are sane. However, the police have numerical targets. That means large numbers of people will become soft targets to bump the numbers up.

In cases of serious criminality, there is zero tolerance anyway unless it occurs in boardrooms. Some might ask for harsher sentences for serious crime but that is a very different point.

Expect the elderly, people of diverse backgrounds, the homeless, the addicted and the disturbed all to be on the end of a boot when often they are the ones who need the greatest assistance.

Was it not in Surrey actual where a physically handicapped person was disgracefully carted away from the wheels of Bradley Wiggins during the Olympics because officers thought he was drunk? Yes it was!

[Serial_Apologist]

I think that this is a hellish result which could only be the direct consequence of low turnout. That in turn has occurred on a day when our main electoral processes have been damaged by a foolhardy experiment.

I am not wholly against zero tolerance where priorities are sane. However, the police have numerical targets. That means large numbers of people will become soft targets to bump the numbers up.

In cases of serious criminality, there is zero tolerance anyway unless it occurs in boardrooms. Some might ask for harsher sentences there but that is a very different point.

Expect the elderly, people of diverse backgrounds, the homeless, the addicted and the disturbed all to be on the end of a boot when often they are the ones who need the greatest assistance.

It will now be renamed Surrey with the Cringe on Top.

Ducks reference near the start...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoZd4GKzOdQ

[Bryn]

I used both votes. My first preference came last, and my second preference eventually came second. We got a Tory. Turnout approximately 13%, so no real mandate.