Tory councillor should not be made deputy police and crime commissioner, panel recommends

“RoyHunt, if as you say they have nothing to do with operational policing why was their campaign all about "what they were going to introduce to policing etc" all were guilty stating what THEY would introduce to local Policing etc...
secondly your arguement about Jackie Smith and others do you think they did a good job? I certainly don't.
You are obviously politically motivated and cannot see outside the politician applicant.”

“Col 18

I don't believe that the panel has the concerns they say. This is bluntly a politically motivated decision, full stop.

In the interview yesterday there were absolutely no questions about operational policing, why, because the role of commissioner and deputy are nothing to do with operational policing. That is the sole preserve of the Chief Constable and his staff.”

“The Panel has concerns over the 'capacity and experience' of the candidate? And their qualifications for coming to that decision?

Frankly the whole farce of Commissioner is an expensive waste of time, but the whole point of Commissioners is that they are not necessarily police trained. So by the Panels own terms not even many Commissioners would have 'capacity and experience'. Would they have decided Prescott had the requisite experience, the bloke who single handedly got to power as Deputy PM, never mind Deputy Commissioner, and promptly forgot where Hull and all its problems were?”

“Cott 1821 - I can't think of any Home Secretary who has had police experience - most notable recent ones were Jackie Smith (ex school teacher) and Alan Johnson (ex postman). Jackie was a total failure but I have great respect for Alan Johnson's ability.

Remember, it is the Chief Constable who would remain responsible for all operational policing matters - thus if you appointed an ex copper, there would be a temptation to interfere where he/she has no remit - this is what put me off of Paul Davison when in the husting I attended his main focus was on how he would tell the Chief Constable and other senior officers how to do their jobs. What Matthew Grove said yesterday was that he wanted Paul to work with other agencies on crime reduction and cost reduction - both roles he believes Paul has previously shown both experience and ability.

We can moan about the selection process of both Matthew and Paul, but I personally feel that whatever the rights and wrongs, we should leave them to get on with the job in hand and mark them out of ten at a later date. By all means hold them to account, but they must be given time to prove their worth in this important job.

I think the biggest mistakes that were made was that there was little opportunity for the electorate to understand the role of Commissioner before the election and the larger parties had a distinct advantage over the independents because of the cost of leafletting. I learnt a lot yesterday about what the role is and is not.

The second biggest mistake was when the Labour Party underestimated the popularity of Lord Prescott. There is a world of difference between voting Labour in a general election and voting for the man in this election. The stop Prescott campaign was what in the end cost him the election.”

“How they can even consider a Commissioner AND a deputy a Deputy Commisioner with no Police Experience beggars belief. I do not know what Mr Groves business interest is but I would like to bet that when he fills a crucial post he asks for experience of that role.
Politicians/ councillor etc seem to think they are qualified to fulfill any role, in reality they struggle to do one thing competently never mind two i.e. Mr Groves running a business and Commissioner, Mr Robinson councillor and deputy.”

“Bewildered,

I think from what I have said about the meeting today, Colin Inglis will confirm that I must have been there. I was the guy scruffily dressed sitting on the cupboard.

On some ocassions I have had only one candidate I thought capable of doing the job and not always did I appoint someone. I have appointed an ex soldier who on paper couldn't do the job, but whom my instincts told me would become an excellent part of my team. Fortunately I was right, but he quickly proved to be so good he left me to work in another part of the company where his career progressed even further.

My proudest appointment was a kid on a work experience programme with no qualifications who I recruited because I thought he had potential that had been thwarted because of his poor schooling in East Hull and personal background. That "kid" now runs the IT for a company who turns over hundreds of millions.

I have also had my share of disappointments, but each has been a learning experience.

Regarding the comments by Cllr Rudd prior to the meeting, it is a matter of fact, not opinion, that he was questioning quite publicly his view that Paul could not do the ERYC councillor role and the Deputy Commissioner role at the same time. So, yes, a fair question to ask as to whether he had pre-determined his position.

On political machinations, I just feel that whether or not we like the idea of having elected police commissioners and appointed deputies and whether the "winners" come from one party or another, the politicking should stop. Perhaps for some it is about making the best out of what we have.

And finally, you can tell from my responses I am far too thin skinned to be a politician, I am an acquaintance of Paul Robinson and am not a member of any political party. I am interested in this subject because it interests me - I don't know why.”

“RoyHunt

"I sat through the interview and all I can say as someone who has appointed a number of people to jobs with a significantly higher pay grade that I personally thought Paul "passed" the interview. I couldn't see that the panel punched any holes in his responses."

Assuming that what you say is true did you only ever have one candidate per post? Would you not agree that having only one candidate per post would guarantee that they "passed the interview". There can be no comparison with other candidates because there are none.

Having read your previous posts on this matter are you in a position to make this statement: "To my mind the Chair of the Panel had effectively pre-determined his position with statements made ahead of the meeting to anyone who wanted to hear him." You are hardly a disinterested commentator.

Your other points regarding the political machinations surely reinforces the case against police commissioners as this leads to the politicisation of the police service.”

“RoyHunt

"I sat through the interview and all I can say as someone who has appointed a number of people to jobs with a significantly higher pay grade that I personally thought Paul "passed" the interview. I couldn't see that the panel punched any holes in his responses."

Assuming that what you say is true did you only ever have one candidate per post? Would you not agree that having only one candidate per post would guarantee that they "passed the interview". There can be no comparison with other candidates because there are none.

Having read your previous posts on this matter are you in a position to make this statement: "To my mind the Chair of the Panel had effectively pre-determined his position with statements made ahead of the meeting to anyone who wanted to hear him." You are hardly a disinterested commentator.

Your other points regarding the political machinations surely reinforces the case against police commissioners as this leads to the politicisation of the police service.”

“Mr Hunt again showing total support for his friend and fellow Tory.

Mr Hunt is right!

And virtually all of Humberside is wrong in wanting rid of this blatant 'cronyism' .

There was 1 yes one supporter of Cllr Robinson on Look North tonight.

Get real Mr Hunt.”

“I sat through the interview and all I can say as someone who has appointed a number of people to jobs with a significantly higher pay grade that I personally thought Paul "passed" the interview. I couldn't see that the panel punched any holes in his responses.

To my mind the Chair of the Panel had effectively pre-determined his position with statements made ahead of the meeting to anyone who wanted to hear him.

We all know that in the dirty world of politics, political reasoning sometimes comes a long way before doing what is right, and I fear that this is exactly what has happened here. Let me explain.

Some time ago there was a furore over paying senior officers in the ERYC huge pension uplifts after they had decided to take early retirement. Stephen Parnaby was and still is the Leader of ERYC and he pushed very hard for these payments, which many thought were obscene, to go through.

A small number of tories stood up against him, including Matthew Grove and Paul Robinson.

In today's meeting Councillor Rudd made a very interesting statement that politicians who don't tow the party line don't get to climb the greasy pole. Meaning that, for him for instance, if he didn't support the wishes of his political master (Parnaby) he might well be cast into the wilderness in terms of the lucrative offices he might like to hold in the future. Of course, Parnaby has also told the world that he objects to Paul's appointment. I took this statement from Cllr Rudd as a way of explaining that the decision of the panel would be a purely political one with the pro Parnaby Conservatives combining with the other parties to oppose a Conservative who had previously disagreed with Councillor Parnaby .

It is also interesting that the decision was made behind closed doors against the wishes of the three Hull panel members. I couldn't discern a reason why this was done. And, as was explained by one of the Officers in attendance, other panels have carried out this part of their determination with the public present. Given that the interview was held in public the only reason that I can see for closing the meeting was so that nobody could see their shoddy political deliberations taking place. To my mind holding part of a meeting such as this in secret opens the door to people questioning the motives for what they have done.

We now move on to more important decisions where the PCP has the power to veto the appointment of the new Chief Constable and the setting of the budget. A pound to a pinch of salt that this panel will oppose whatever is presented to them as a matter of party politics, and if they do, shame on them.

As Paul and Matthew said, once the election was over, the rosettes were tossed in the bin. Unfortunately, the PCP seem to be wearing theirs on a matter where politics should come a long way second, not a long way first.

Paul's role is as a paid employee of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner. The salary for the role he has been nominated for is set by them according to national guidelines for all publc employees. The Chief Executive, who will become Paul's boss, was there to explain how the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner, the CEO and his other staff would work together. He made the point that although the lines of management and communication were somewhat crossed, they had worked through how in practice the job would pan out. The CEO has worked with Paul and Matthew quite a lot since the election and would have had a very good view as to whether he thought Paul was capable of doing the job he was being nominated for. None of the Councillors on the panel asked him his view of Paul's capability. Perhaps because they knew the answer and didn't want to hear it.

As to the future, it was interesting to learn that if the CEO is concerned about Paul's performance in the job he is being asked to do, he comes under pretty much the same disciplinary process as any other employee.”