Sunday, 19 September 2010

North Wales Police Authority demonstrates why it needs to be abolished

Last week I wrote about how the North Wales Police Authority had pleaded in Wednesday's Holyhead & Anglesey Mail for everyone to take part in an online survey on elected Police Commissioners. By Thursday - the very next day - this self same survey was 'closed'.

In yesterday's Daily Post, North Wales Police Authority's vice chair, Douglas Wynne reappeared -- this time to tell us the 'interim' results of the survey. Yes, the 'interim' results of the survey we had one day to take part in. Anyway, here is the Daily Post headline:

And just incase you had still failed to get the impression that the survey results found against the idea of an elected Police Commissioner, the Daily Post even helpfully included a sub-headline:

The article itself then begins like this:

"OPPOSITION is growing to the idea of having an elected commissioner in charge of police in North Wales. The interim results of a survey show a majority of people are against the proposal which is part of a package of reforms being put forward by the Government"

It goes on to give the results of the survey:

"Of those who responded, 41% were opposed to a commissioner while less than 30% were in favour."

Happily, the NWPA have published (pdf) the full results of the survey on their website so I went to have a look. Here are the actual results to the crucial question, "Overall, are you in favour of a directly elected Police and Crime Commissioner?":

So, yes, just 29% of respondents declared themselves to be in 'favour' and 41% of respondents did indeed oppose the proposal. But hold on a moment: whats that big pink wedge in the top left? Oh, thats the percentage of respondents who said they were 'somewhat in favour' of an elected police commissioner... which by my reckoning means that actually 45% (29% + 16%) of respondents are either 'in favour' or 'somewhat in favour' of elected police commissioners. In other words, in direct contradiction to the spin put on the results by both NWPA Vice Chair Douglas Wynne and the apocalyptic Daily Post headlines, those favouring elected police chiefs outnumber those opposed by four percentage points.

So, what about that dire warning at the beginning of the Daily Post article which told us ominously that "OPPOSITION is growing to the idea of having an elected commissioner in charge of police in North Wales"? Just how many people from North Wales actually took part in the survey? According to the published results just 82 respondents were from North Wales... To call this shoddy reporting doesn't even begin to do it justice. Outright lies is a more apposite. 

Elsewhere in the article, NWPA's Douglas Wynne goes on to say that in addition to the (fake) public opposition, "we are also worried we could end up with a police commissioner from an extremist party or single issue pressure group".  Well, let me put his mind at rest -- below is the Druid voting intention poll aggregator for North Wales:

As you can see, "others" which includes UKIP, Greens, BNP, Communist, Socialist and Christian parties rarely polls above five per cent in North Wales -- within that, the BNP (because they are surely the 'extremists' Wynne is talking about), have never polled above two percent. The very idea that a representative of any of those parties would be elected as Police Commissioner in North Wales is pure fantasy. In fact, I would say it is a slur on North Wales residents to even raise this as a concern.

So, to conclude, the non-elected NWPA vice chair has basically (a) wilfully distorted and misrepresented the actual results of a survey which anyway had a minuscule number of respondents from North Wales; and (b) stated that he doesn't trust North Wales residents not to elect a BNP police commissioner. In so doing he has given me the clearest reason yet why the NWPA should be abolished and replaced by a directly elected Police Commissioner.

Incidentally, I note that the survey is now up and running again and I therefore urge you to take part and let the NWPA know what you really think. You can take the survey here.

The full 'interim' results are below:
Police Reform Consultation Report


Anonymous said...

As a retired Police Officer who spent all his service in the inner cities, the one thing that I did learn was that the more someone thinks that they have all the answers to the proplems of policing, the less they know. Whilst Police Authorities are not brilliant, anyone who wants to be elected have to be populist to get elected. Even when Police Chiefs are not elected they have thier own agenda, eg the Mad Mula of the Traffic Taliban may well have been correct and saved lives, but an elected Chief would have undoubtedly have bowed to public pressure. North Wales roads are used as a race track and the death rates prove this. I do not believe that the People of North Wales deserve a Police Chief who will bow to pressure because next time, he wants the vote of the bloke down the pub.

Scientist said...

I think this episode proves two things:

(1) Police officers are not very good at statistics and preparing proper poll questions. You need just over 1000 responses to form a statistically-valid poll result, not 82! The online survey they present does not allow for economic, ethnic, age and sex background to be input, and this automatically leads to a skewed, non-representative result. There is no way any educated person would allow, let alone rely upon such a poll.

(2) The Daily Post is equally not very good at examining the stories they are fed with by PR officers.

There is now a growing recognition that, if respondents to polls have an interest in the topic being discussed and careful in how they answer, then quite often they will feel compelled to throw themselves into the 'don't know' category. That is because they will have plenty of facts, some of which go against one another. In essence, the questions are just too simplistic, not that this matters in this case, as the poll seems fundamentally flawed from the outset.

My suggestion would be that they should scrap the poll in recognition of its obvious and extremely serious failings that are already producing inevitably unreliable conclusions. It is very likely that most respondents will have little or no in-depth understanding of (as opposed to the ability to understand) the issues surrounding the proposals, which further casts serious doubt on the poll.

Anonymous said...

Scientist: Police officers did not have anything to do with this poll; it was the North Wales Police Authority, those appointed members supposed to oversee policing in North Wales.

Jarlath said...

The central theme of those making the argument for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCC) is improving accountability. From what I have read the Police Authorities won’t be abolished as such, but will be renamed the Police and Crime Panel (PCP) with different functions and responsibilities. There will still be a Chief Constable.

As I see it the main difference will be that the Chief Constable will be answerable to the PCC, who in turn will be accountable to the PCP. The Commissioner will also be accountable to the public, when they stand for re-election.

As this is a Conservative manifesto commitment and policy, which I understand the Liberal Democrats are also supporting (subject to adequate checks and balances), I am unsure what the purpose of the survey is, especially if it is not a true cross section of the community.

Having given the matter some thought I think that a Police and Crime Commissioner is a good idea. The interesting question though is can they deliver a more efficient Police service and at the same time achieve substantial savings in the running costs?

Or will the public when asked to decide between say more police or fewer police go for what they may perceive to be the right answer, but not necessarily the right solution.

As for the Daily Post, well that’s the Daily Post, who recently had the cheek to say they where getting bigger and better. Of course saying “the opposition is growing” means nothing really, i.e. last week there was only one bloke outside the Pub complaining about the price of beer, now there are two, I see opposition is growing…

Groundhog Day said...

With regard to keeping an eye on costs, it should be remembered that during Brunstrom's tenure he wasted in excess of £200k unsuccessfully pursuing a whistleblower through the courts. Then the megalomaniac blew even more of our hard earned dosh setting up a mounted unit (which has now been disbanded) aided and abetted by Ian Roberts then chairman of the authority. I personally believe it not to be a bad thing to make these people answerable to the taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

Joskin councillors and Police commitees a very bad mix, no wonder we have no faith, in both of them.

Anonymous said...

"Police officers did not have anything to do with this poll"

Quite right, I stand corrected in my enthusiasm to point out the fundamental flaw in their poll.

However, one has to ask who is pushing this desperate last-stand for survival and an attempt at accountability of the kind we've never previously seen from the NWPA? I suspect the senior officers are not entirely absent from the effort.

I see the poll does now allow for some background information, but not enough; socio-economic background is absent, for example.

I think the scary bit is the involvement of magistrates; I've never come across a bunch of more ignorant, hang 'em up high fascists in all my life. On an open day at C'fon last year, a questioner asked: what comment have you to make on the enormous difference in guilty verdicts between the Magistrates' and Crown Courts? The reply? "They get away with it more upstairs [Crown Court] because the jury don't understand the law. We get used to it and so people don't get away with it here'.

Sadly for the leather-jacketed Magistrate, the whole concept of a Court is not to try and bring about a guilty verdict, but to present the evidence and make an informed judgement. If you do try your level best to bring a guilty verdict, then you must be assuming the police are a bit more reliable and honest than the evidence often suggests.

What's even more scary is that the verification word is now 'scary'!!

Langefni said...

More Reverlations
Today on

Anglesey Council MD - Bowles Memo Aims To Newter Durkin.

The Red Flag said...

What this displays is that the Police are actually terrified of being held directly accountable to the people and are trying their hardest to undermine it.

Basically, this isn't actually any of their business and I wonder how much of our money and how many man-hours they have wasted on this 'resistance' so far. I sincerely hope they aren't going to be looking for a rise from us for next year if it's going to be used on resisting us like this.

Jarlath said...

To Anon 8:38 - Your knowledge as an ex-policeman is useful, and I wonder if you could be so kind as to comment on the following:

Police officers are expensive, not just because of the salary but the cost of training etc. Some feel that as a resource their time is wasted when after an arrest say, they need to spend considerable time filling in forms, whereas it is argued they should be back on the streets. A certain amount of the time is spent colleting vital evidence, speaking to witness, experts etc but the questions is, could a civilian workforce carry out this vital, but largely unseen work with only an oversight from the lead police officer on the case in addition to the normal form filling?

And whilst I can see the benefits of regional Police Forces, I ask also whether the support for them IT, Personnel, Finance etc could not be provided by a separate all Wales Police Support Unit?

Finally Druid, seeing you like radical ideas, how about merging the Ambulance service and the Fire service, a bit like they do in France?

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
;) said...

Re: Public on-line signatures of councillors and officers.

I see that Mr Bowles signature is on the posting link.

(Not a dig - just an observation)

The Druid of Anglesey said...

Comment made at 12.34 deleted for breaking Godwin's Law

Anonymous said...

David Bowles's neutralization of Cllr Durkin. All very unsavoury and dangerous stuff. Anglesey County Council can never move forward with this sort of behaviour going on.

Anonymous said...

Red Flag

" this isn't actually any of their business "

Whose business is it then. The men who paint Bont Borth?

"resisting us like this"

Who are the 'us' ? And who are they actually resisting?

Do you think that it is right that a bunch of semi trained polecats who happen to have put up their names for election by a predominantley disinterested electorate can just produce any policy they want regarding any subject matter and then those that it directly affects in work terms just roll over and accept it?

I know you have explained your pseudonym before to be a football related one but I rather think that this particular attitude would be worthy of Uncle Joe S, Chairman Mao, Fidel et al.

(I was going to balance it by including the other well known one from the 30' 40s but feared the wrath of breach of Godwins Law!!The above are nothing compared to an indignant blog owner. :-))

Fillan said...

Sorry Druid I know not the right thread but someone mentioned it so:

Hi having regard to I would like to see the evidence to support the following claim:

“Barrie Durkin's constant unearthing of wrongdoing undermines the MD's strategy hence the offensive against Barrie Durkin to "gag him" and to "whisper untruths in the corridors in an attempt to blacken his good name. Barrie Durkin is tenacious, methodical, relentless and honest.....he cares about probity and standards.”

But hold is this the Cllr Durkin when asked refused to allow an independent observer the chance to listen to the tape he claims he has of a meeting between him and Cllr Bob Parry.

As far as I can recall Cllr Durkin has promised much but delivered little further than self-publicity, I stand to be corrected of course.

And why has Cllr Durkin being identified as a troublemaker, um...because he is ONE, as identified not only by the MD of the Council, but the Recovery Board as well.

Yes we all know he cares about probity and standards, that is why he was disciplined when a Community Councillor, for failing to meet the appropriate standards..

GPJ say in his blog:
“This post is in the public interest; I am personally only interested in "integrity" at Anglesey Council.”

And I have no reason to doubt him, sadly though he seems to have been misled by someone. I have my suspicions as to who, it’s really up to him and no doubt he has the evidence to back up what some would say are malicious claims.

Anonymous said...

I've just sent a letter to Carl Sargent about this police authority nonsense poll. Totally misleading, put together by people who clearly don't known anything about polling, and making false conclusions from the data - there are more, by 4% - in some form of support than against - as Druid points out already. But only if you think the poll is representative, which it isn't, because it's self-selecting - only people looking for the poll will give their opinions. Flawed from the start, but what do you expect from a body hitherto largely unaccountable?

The Great Councillini said...

Here's a letter sent to the NWPA, SWPA, and Carl Sargeant this morning, broken into two parts, as per Druid's request:

This just sent to the NWPA directly, after they apologised for the delay in advising why the poll had disappeared last week (to prepare the initial report, apparently).
Thank you for your kind response.

I do not propose to initiate an exchange of e-mail correspondence, but whilst we are engaged in contact, can I please make the following observations on the 'initial' results, as the NWPA calls them:

(1) The sample is not representative of the population because it is self-selecting. In other words, only those who feel they have an opinion on the topic will trouble themselves to respond. There is some background information gathered about respondents, but this is not
complete, and crucially lacks information on socio-economic
background. There is therefore no robust means of correcting for the
sample that you do gather.

(2) The poll asks for the respondents' sex, but the responses are not broken down by sex. In contrast, and perhaps in a nod to political correctness, the fraction of 'ethnic minority' backgrounds is quoted (but not how they 'vote' on the poll).

(3) The response rate per head of population is exceptionally low;
Anglesey (population ca. 70,000), has only 7 respondents - 1 in
10,000. Even as a total, 884 responses is well below the accepted minimum representative (which it anyway is not) poll size of about 1000 respondents.

(4) You do not provide the margin of error (the confidence intervals)
for the poll. If it were quoted, the confidence in the results would
appear to be low.

(5) There may be bias in the questions asked, and so stray into a 'push-poll'. It is not clear who drew up the poll, but it is clear why it is was drawn. From the general content of the report so far, there seems to be a bias against the concept of elected commissioners within the NWPA.

The Great Councillini said...

Part 2:

(6) I have no doubt that, taking all the evidence into consideration,
that the poll put forward, and the results cited, would not be
acceptable as a valid poll if it were subjected to scrutiny by
reputable polling organisations and/or statisticians.

(7) The views expressed by the NWPA on the conclusions of this flawed data set are entirely misleading. Referring to page 8, you state "41% are not in favour of a...PCC". This is false. 29% say they are in favour, and then 16% state that they are 'somewhat in favour'. That totals at least 45% who are, to a greater or lesser degree, in favour -
more than the 41% you quote as being against the concept. This reveals the bias in the NWPA's current stance. If we assume, reasonably, that at least some of the 13% of 'don't know' respondents ultimately favour
the elected PCC, then the final figure either in favour or not in
favour may well change. But that again assumes that the poll is
unbiased and representative, which it objectively is not.

I think these problems are quite serious for a supposedly accountable organisation, for it opens up the NWPA to the charge of bias and being unrepresentative, certainly as far as the poll goes, of the public it claims to serve. I think it is entirely appropriate that these concerns are brought to the attention of the audience for which the initial report was prepared, for it is based on fundamentally-flawed data.


The Red Flag said...

anon 20 September 2010 13:43

Whose business is it then. The men who paint Bont Borth?
The people that 'own' this country - the electorate.

Who are the 'us' ? And who are they actually resisting?
The electorate. It is the electorate's right to chose.

Do you think that it is right that a bunch of semi trained polecats who happen to have put up their names for election by a predominantley disinterested electorate can just produce any policy they want regarding any subject matter and then those that it directly affects in work terms just roll over and accept it?
We live in a democracy. If that is what the electorate decide then the Police are duty bound to accept it as a decidion and individual Officers are more than capabl;e of quitting should it bother them that much. Which it won't. If you have a major problem with 'polecats' standing then you stand as a candidate.

I know you have explained your pseudonym before to be a football related one but I rather think that this particular attitude would be worthy of Uncle Joe S, Chairman Mao, Fidel et al.
Strange you think this is a left wing fascist idea being as New Labour opposed it (not that they are left wing but they were bordering on fascistic) and the tories are pushing it. So you believe Cameron is left wing fascist then? How bizarre.

Anonymous said...

Red Flag

If you think that 'the electorate' own the country then I can only shake my head in awe at such naievity.

The electorate's right to choose? All they(we) have a right is to choose between whichever semi- etc etc that happens to stand. The largest group of those then get to form a government.That government then gets to put forward various papers re it's intentions.(Please don't mistake think that they are the same as their manifesto) And here's the rub, they put it into consultations. Consultations which will include parliamentary scrutiny (ha!) and also with those whom it will affect. This has nothing to do with the ever so important 'electorate' who you seem to think you and a few others on a blog represent (unelected natch)
I agree we live in a Democracy, of a sort. I don't recall the referendum on this particular topic though so 'the electorate have not decided the issue have they. Being as there wasn't a referendum then I can only assume that it goes through the whole scrutiny/consultation business. That being the case then the NWPA are entitled to express their case in any way they seem fit.
The fascist manner etc refers to your idea of overruling this right of scrutiny/consultation and not to the governments idea of introducing it. But you knew that.

Anonymous said...

I'd speak to Bob Parry before you make any further comment about tapes.
He's already admitted that the conversation with Mr Durkin was taped.
As regard the Recovery Board . They have done nothing of the sort and
last but not least. How do YOU know Durkin is a trouble maker?

The Red Flag said...

Anon 15:37. This was tory policy at the general election. The tories won. It will now happen - that was the 'mandate from the people'. Admittedly, in our current FPTP system it's not a majority of voters let alone a quorum but it's accepted practice and until we change in a couple of years to a more democratic system then we live in the current one and must accept it.

This has as much to do with the NWPA as it does to the staff who work for the Police. Nothing more than their right to vote for the elected representative in a few years time. What they are doing at the moment is a rather clumsy and crude attempt and subverting government policy. In short they have become political and as a result will when they lose be expected to take the political way out - quit or look gutless.

My bet is that this will go ahead and that none of them will quit - they'll choose the other option.

Anonymous said...

Wow, a body half made up of policians is accused of being political. Cosmic.

The Red Flag said...

It is not their place to publicly attempt to undermine the elected government's policy, misrepresenting dubious data and spending ratepayers money doing so.

Still, they've nailed their colours to the mast so it will come as no surprise to them when the elected representative goves them the choice of kneeling before him/her and publicly pledging loyaltry and support or quitting. Live by the sword etc etc.

More of these types of bodies should be fronted by directly elected represenatives - health boards, education boards etc and even a directly elected Mayor

Anonymous said...

You are entitled to you view Red Flag.Do try and remember, if only for your blood pressure, that that is all it is. We all have 'they should..insertfavouritegripehere..moments.Reality is another thing

I'm intrigued with this kneeling before... pledge..or else quit etc

Is this something that happens to Councillors in this country? Who do they kneel in front of. I'd like to know where and when so that I can have a look at the ceremony on Daily Politics. They're bound to cover such a solemn occasion as such a pledge and kowtowing to an almighty figure.

The Red Flag said...

Is this something that happens to Councillors in this country?

Bowles seems to think so down in the Llangefni Kremlin.

That aside, the elected representative will not nb ethre to be one of them. He/She will be there - with the mandate of the voter - to make sure that the NWPA are in turn making sure the Police are policing North Wales the way the people want it policing. They will have to work with him/her wether they like it or not. In fact wethewr they agree or not is of no importance as they don't have the mandate - he/she will.
And that is the way it should be.

Anonymous said...

Got me in the true squaddie tradition, Red Flag.

brains* bullshit baffles.


Nos da.I'll retire early to gather strenght for tomorrows joust!

* not that my whitterings show much evidence of these.

The Red Flag said...

It's not though is it. The elected PCC is not to be part of the establishment. They are to be the people's direct input over the NWPA

That's the whole point. If they don't and become part of it instead then 4 years down the line they get rightly turfed out on their arse and replaced.
It seems the NWPA don't particulalry relish doing what the people want and being publicly scrutinised hence their 'resistance'.

Until tomorrow.

The Great Councillini said...

The South Wales Police service (but not our North Wales equivalent) has responded this morning to assure me the letter has been sent to their Chief Constable's office. As I suspected, the Police Authority doesn't seem to be quite as separate from the police staff as they like to portray.

Anyhow, I can assure them, in turn, that the letter was sent to Minister Carl Sargeant's office yesterday afternoon.

I should offer a concession, though: it's not false, as I badly wrote, that 41% of people are against elected PCCs. What I meant to emphasise was that is it false to stress 41% are opposed, and not to highlight that 45% are in favour. Not that any of the numbers mean anything, because they've not been collected to represent the population as a whole.

Anonymous said...

There's another problem with the NWPA position. They say they are concerned that some 'extremists' will take over the elected PCC position. Quite apart from the points eloquently put by the Druid on running party support, this runs into the age-old problem of being undemocratic.

Like it or not, the BNP is a recognised, lawful political party. Those elements of it which were not lawful have been challenged and ordered to change on pain of legal action against them.

So, it's a question of whether we want an entirely unelected body in the form of the police authority to tell us what's best for us, or else a lawful political party, however repugnant its underlying philosophy, to represent the views of those who have equally lawfully voted for it.

As Voltaire said: "I hate what you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it". I would suggest that the uncomfortable truth for the NWPA is that, as an unelected body, it has far, far less right to say things than a democratic political party.

True: at the moment, a police authority is probably a safer pair of hands than the BNP. But there's nothing to say that an extremist could end-up on the NWPA by being appointed today. Maybe to a young, coloured, ethnic background gay man or woman, a white, middle-class retired heterosexual JP on the board could be seen as some form of extremist?

The Red Flag said...

The BNP hold absolutely no chance of taking control of the post of PCC. Their voter-base in North Wales is beneath pitiful. It's somewhere around 2% at most and is concentrated mainly in the Wrecsam/Deeside area. Outside of there it is virtually nil.

When that BNP membership list was put on the internet for example, Anglesey had about 13 members as I recall.

This threat of 'extremists' is quite frankly as laughable as it is pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks the Daily Post shouldn't be allowed to escape serious criticism. We know the police own some journos but this just takes the biscuit.

The Druid of Anglesey said...

I agree - a letter to the Daily Post is certainly in order...

Anonymous said...

Minister Carl Sergeant.

Everytime I see that I burst out laughing.

Ye Gods, what next. I was gobsmacked when he was elevated to village idiot.

Anonymous said...

"So, it's a question of whether we want an entirely unelected body in the form of the police authority to tell us what's best for us"

"uncomfortable truth for the NWPA is that, as an unelected body, it has far, far less right to say things than a democratic political party"

In what way are they unelected?

The Councillor Members are selected by their (relevant council) peers all of whom have been democratically elected and the JP Members by the government which in turn has been democratically elected.

Anonymous said...

It is a question of whether any of those councillors - or JPs for that matter - have any ability or understanding to run the NWPA. Be realistic - it's the establishment in action: you're a councillor? How about a stint as a police authority member? Nobody elects councillors to be omnipotent, and they clearly are not!

I'd also argue the 'democracy' bit: isn't it just a 4-year elected autocracy? Anglesey's example seems to say 'yes', as I doubt any of us want them involved in the kind of antics they've been up to for decades. Yet it's still democratic, on paper at least.

Anonymous said...

"Yet it's still democratic, on paper at least."

Glad to hear that it is democratic though.

Anonymous said...

Cllr Peter Rogers is a member of the NWPA. He's been complained of to the Public Service's Ombudsman for Wales by the NWPA. Doesn't inspire any confidence in me.

Jarlath said...

Don't forget there will still be a role for Councillors, as explained on the South Wales Police web site:

"There is also therefore, a proposal to create a Police and Crime Panel (PCP). Panels will be drawn from locally elected Councillors from constituent wards and independent lay members. "


Colin said...

I live in Penyffordd nr Mold we have 1800 speeders a day through the village. Flintshire County Council hold the data. NWP ignore the speeding and NWPA also do not want to know. NWPA can go tomorrow wholly unaccountable, too close to the police and not close enough to communities.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
jarlath said...

Talking of the Daily Post yesterday's issue had the 'Daily Post's Manifesto' - now I wonder where they got that idea from?

Prometheuswrites said...


Thanks for the heads up on the Daily Post's Manifesto.

Not a bad shot, even if I don't agree with all their points.

Does anyone know whether the political groupings on Anglesey have produced their manifesto's yet.

I believe there was a deadline due sometime earlier this summer.
Serious questions should be being asked of these parties if they cannot come up a simple statement of what they stand for.

Serious questions also for those who tasked them with providing said statements.

Like: What are you going to do when people ignore your directions - If you're not going to do anything, then why ask in the first place?

I guess my own cynicism rises as my concerns about the intergrity of the WAG sinks lower.


I have to agree with Kirsty Williams that they are more comcerned with "covering up critiscism of their administration/department".

Anonymous said...

"Don't forget there will still be a role for Councillors, as explained on the South Wales Police web site:"

Yes, it all looks entirely democratic. But the question I still have is this: just how accountable, in real terms, are elected councillors? I say 'not very'. Anglesey's example demonstrates this better than most places, other perhaps than Doncaster.

The reality in local government is that you elect people in, then they never ask for your views on anything. The only time you see the Councillor is when they want your vote again. That's not a cynical view, it's a realistic one. The net result is no meaningful accountability. Because Anglesey keeps returning the same old tired people back to power, they end up on things like the NWPA for years and years and years, never developing, never bringing in new ideas.

Anonymous said...

The POLICE are too frightened to POLICE the streets, they have lost the faith of the tax payer, and have allowed the criminals to have the ir own way, the victim is penalised for reporting crimes, the whole system has eveporated if we don't make the POLICE mor avvountable to the public, then we may as well not bother reporting crimes, but take the law in your own hands, it;s your own right to use anymeans possible to defend yourself against the lawbreakers, because the lawmakers and law keepers have abandoned us all.

Anonymous said...

Baseball caps for sale, any offers?

Telephone cop shop Colwyn bay ext 69

Groundhog Day said...

I must admit to admiring the way the new Ch Constable has quietly gone about his business since his appointment, what a breath of fresh air after the Brunstrom tenure! How sensible to get rid of those baseball caps - with the exception of firearms officers there was never any need to introduce them. Brunstrom had our bobbies looking more like chavs than the chavs themselves. I could never understand why different constabularies have different uniforms, surely it would be more economical for them all to wear the same uniform, same applies to their vehicles. Why do they not all source their vehicles from the same outlet?