Sir Ian's demise has angered the police. Different sections of the police are angry for different reasons. One could be forgiven for dismissing these 'copper's rantings' as something relevant only to the police themselves. That is not the case.
Lets start with the simple, and perhaps superficial issues. Many rank and file officers if you read the Internet police forums are angry at what some see as the Commissioner's operational incompetence, or at the very least the damage his operational blunder's have heaped on not just the Met but the whole of the UK Police Service. As one member of the Police Oracle forum opines, "We need to go back to Forces being led by coppers not bean counters". It is fair to say that Sir Ian has had difficulty fully engaging with many Metropolitan police officers and staff.
So officers are annoyed with the Commissioner and many are glad he is going. But the next thing they are angry about is the nature of his departure, and this is on two levels. Many officers are angry that Boris Johnson has been able to easily out manoeuvre both the Commissioner and the Home Secretary in such a calculated coup. And for many this is as far as their anger goes. But for others, as someone on the police forum succinctly puts, "his resignation is perhaps the most significant and overt act of political interference wielded over the police we have yet to see". This is the nub of the wider and far more serious concern.
Policing in the UK has historically enjoyed a 'separation of powers', keeping the judiciary, the police and politicians separate. If left unchecked the ability of a locally elected official to in effect sack a Chief Constable fundamentally changes this relationship.
The British public elect a government. Very often Law and Order is a fundamental part of their voting decision. So if, say, people in Birmingham are concerned about the threat of terrorism, they may vote for the party they think will use the police most effectively to counter this threat. The Association of Police Officers (ACPO) assigns Chief Constables policing 'portfolios', one of which is terrorism - in this instance held by Sir Ian Blair. This carries with it heavy national policing responsibilities both operational and strategic. All OK so far. Then along comes a local vote hundreds of miles away in London (and perhaps in the future in other cities) to elect a Mayor. The Birmingham voters have no say as it apparently does not concern them. However within hours of that appointment the Mayor in reality sacks the very Chief Officer who was appointed by the Home Secretary of the elected government and who has national counter terrorism responsibilities. Forget the fact that Jacqui Smith has the only statutory authority to hire and fire the Commissioner. The fact is she is impotent in the face of a Mayor who is Chair of the Police Authority and flatly refuses to work constructively with the Commissioner. Boris has rendered the Home Secretary irrelevant, along with the general election votes of all those people in Birmingham.
So, as Lord Steven's said in relation to Blair's departure 'This is a sad day for the Office of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police'. I intend to agree, but it could also be seen as a sad day for democracy if we aren't very careful.
So there maybe much hand-wringing within the Police service, Whitehall officials may call it 'a very black day for the Constitutional position around policing' and Sir Ian may be licking his wounds, but what that matters now is future clarity.
The public have a right to know who can influence matters of national importance which have always been understood to be controlled by our national democratic system. If mayoral systems are to be introduced with distinct control over the police in their city, clarification must be forthcoming as to the relationship between these mayors and the elected Home Secretary concerning policing issues which have national ramifications. I am not advocating either local or national control - just for the public, and the police service to be appraised of such important issues.
Sir Ian Blair politicised the office of Commissioner and has now fallen victim to political manoeuvring. Perhaps he cannot complain. But members of the police service and members of the public have the right to, and indeed should, complain about the lack of 'due process' so that the flexing of politicians' muscles does not seriously damage law and order in the UK.
Lets start with the simple, and perhaps superficial issues. Many rank and file officers if you read the Internet police forums are angry at what some see as the Commissioner's operational incompetence, or at the very least the damage his operational blunder's have heaped on not just the Met but the whole of the UK Police Service. As one member of the Police Oracle forum opines, "We need to go back to Forces being led by coppers not bean counters". It is fair to say that Sir Ian has had difficulty fully engaging with many Metropolitan police officers and staff.
So officers are annoyed with the Commissioner and many are glad he is going. But the next thing they are angry about is the nature of his departure, and this is on two levels. Many officers are angry that Boris Johnson has been able to easily out manoeuvre both the Commissioner and the Home Secretary in such a calculated coup. And for many this is as far as their anger goes. But for others, as someone on the police forum succinctly puts, "his resignation is perhaps the most significant and overt act of political interference wielded over the police we have yet to see". This is the nub of the wider and far more serious concern.
Policing in the UK has historically enjoyed a 'separation of powers', keeping the judiciary, the police and politicians separate. If left unchecked the ability of a locally elected official to in effect sack a Chief Constable fundamentally changes this relationship.
The British public elect a government. Very often Law and Order is a fundamental part of their voting decision. So if, say, people in Birmingham are concerned about the threat of terrorism, they may vote for the party they think will use the police most effectively to counter this threat. The Association of Police Officers (ACPO) assigns Chief Constables policing 'portfolios', one of which is terrorism - in this instance held by Sir Ian Blair. This carries with it heavy national policing responsibilities both operational and strategic. All OK so far. Then along comes a local vote hundreds of miles away in London (and perhaps in the future in other cities) to elect a Mayor. The Birmingham voters have no say as it apparently does not concern them. However within hours of that appointment the Mayor in reality sacks the very Chief Officer who was appointed by the Home Secretary of the elected government and who has national counter terrorism responsibilities. Forget the fact that Jacqui Smith has the only statutory authority to hire and fire the Commissioner. The fact is she is impotent in the face of a Mayor who is Chair of the Police Authority and flatly refuses to work constructively with the Commissioner. Boris has rendered the Home Secretary irrelevant, along with the general election votes of all those people in Birmingham.
So, as Lord Steven's said in relation to Blair's departure 'This is a sad day for the Office of Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police'. I intend to agree, but it could also be seen as a sad day for democracy if we aren't very careful.
So there maybe much hand-wringing within the Police service, Whitehall officials may call it 'a very black day for the Constitutional position around policing' and Sir Ian may be licking his wounds, but what that matters now is future clarity.
The public have a right to know who can influence matters of national importance which have always been understood to be controlled by our national democratic system. If mayoral systems are to be introduced with distinct control over the police in their city, clarification must be forthcoming as to the relationship between these mayors and the elected Home Secretary concerning policing issues which have national ramifications. I am not advocating either local or national control - just for the public, and the police service to be appraised of such important issues.
Sir Ian Blair politicised the office of Commissioner and has now fallen victim to political manoeuvring. Perhaps he cannot complain. But members of the police service and members of the public have the right to, and indeed should, complain about the lack of 'due process' so that the flexing of politicians' muscles does not seriously damage law and order in the UK.
About the Author:
http://tinyurl.com/4rhck9
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment