The Quick Tom Winsor Poll

This is not police officer specific. Please take part and share with friends and colleagues. This appointment affects us all.


3 thoughts on “The Quick Tom Winsor Poll”

  1. A man who displays no integrity, no moral courage and questionable honesty to lead British Policing which displays all those virtues, appointed by a government that has none of the above. A complete joke

  2. I do not believe this posted Tom Winsor straw poll is sound, for various reasons: –
    • Like many such polls it does not appear to fairly ask the key question or allow a fair range of responses – including Don’t Know.
    • The question it seems (based on the apparent core police objection), should be whether one agrees to an independent HMIC as a matter of principle – and should not reference a particular individual. Hardly anyone responding is likely to know enough of Tom Winsor to comment on his personal appointment, one way or the other.
    I would have hoped that the police have enough self-belief in their position and confidence in the merits of their particular point of view, not to feel that the HMIC should be one of them by background and be ‘fully supportive of the police’. It is quite acceptable and even essential for any official exercising key judgements whether to do with a specialist subject or not, for that individual to be independent, as well as intellectually competent. It is entirely appropriate for any such official to seek specialist advice in judging the merits or rights and wrongs of a particular technical issue and formulating their judgement. It would be equally wrong for the HMIC to be ‘fully supportive of the Government’ in any predisposed bias they may have.
    If the question were: Should the HMIC be independent of the police by personal background? My answer would be YES.
    I believe independence (subject to a competent inspection process including access to specialist evidence and advice) to be fundamental to exercising the judgement required of the position
    As to the second question, if this were: Should the HMIC be pre-qualified as ‘fully supportive of the police’? My answer would be NO.
    Any such predisposition and bias would be fundamentally wrong, and a clear disqualification as to suitability for the position of HMIC.
    In summary independence is an absolute prerequisite of any such position along with proven and demonstrable intellectual competence and experience in undertaking an unbiased enquiry and exercising sound judgement in reaching the required conclusion to any such enquiry. In undertaking this duty the HMIC must be guided bt the best interests of the public. It just so happens that the best interest of the public is to have a competent, efficient and cost effective police service. And the Police should themselves not doubt their ability to withstand any enquiry or interrogation in reaching such a determination. If this defines ‘fully supportive’ as it should do, then I and I suspect the majority of the public the police are pledged to serve, are ‘fully supportive’.
    NB: This is not intended to be a provocative and unsympathetic comment. I consider myself to be a not untypical member of the public: I have a deep seated respect for our Police and readily accept the critical need to preserve core experience and ensuring they are appropriately resourced to satisfy the policing needs of the public. In performing this crucial public service a Police officer nonetheless needs to accept a responsibility to submit to the financial imperatives in funding the service. If this means working to 60+ (in a suitable position if age compromises the physical fitness required on the front line), and receiving a reward in line with the economic imperatives affecting fellow citizens – then that has to be. These judgements are properly made by the elected representatives of the public whilst the police should have every opportunity to present their case for their particular share of the financial ‘cake’. It is not appropriate to heckle and abuse those who are charged with the economic realities of our time with the opposing needs of the public. Respectful and professional conduct is the only acceptable way for any public servant or institution to conduct themselves, in debating these difficult questions and arguing convincingly in favour of a particular point of view.

  3. It is entirely inappropriate for a man who has no previous experience of operational policing, who has linkages to companies (G4S) who stand to make fortunes out of the privatisation of certain police functions and, who has further been shown to produce a document which is based on a previously published Conservative document, filled with inaccuracies and actual DECEIPT – to be then regarded as an individual with the skills and competencies to be CHMIC.
    It is a disgrace and shows the governments intention to implement (by placing their cronies in appropriate positions of power) to drive through changes which satisy their political agenda – in the absence of any consultation with the public and which will fundamentally alter the concept of Policing by Public Consent (and the accountability which goes with that) to one of Policing for Profit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s