Jobs for the boys!

On the PCC website, regarding proposed candidates (for the recent election) it clearly stated: “PCCs are required to swear an oath of impartiality when they are elected to office.

The oath is designed so that PCCs can set out publicly their commitment to tackling their new role with integrity. It reflects the commitment police officers make to serve every member of the public impartially and makes clear that they are there to serve the people, not a political party or any one section of their electorate”.

So can someone now explain how that statement can be equated with the stated political affiliations of some of the candidates? On his election prospectus Paddy Tippings twice mentions Conservative government cuts. Not government, cuts or coalition cuts, but Conservative cuts.

So how impartial is that, and was it not in complete contradiction to the spirit of the election of an Independent Police Crime Commissioner?

as no-one overseeing this election to ensure the candidates met the independence criteria? Personally, I believe that anyone who had stated their political affiliations on their prospectus or anyone who was found to be ‘sponsored’ - financed by a political party - should have been barred from standing as it obviously contravened the most basic requirement of the post, which was independence. Surely there are enough politics within the Police Service already without adding another tier? So unfortunately we have just ended up with the same old suspects and ‘jobs for the boys’.

No wonder there was such a voter apathy. A real missed opportunity…

Barry Martin,

Stanley Road, Forest Town.