Good bye, Sir Hugh

Sir Hugh Orde, top quangocrat at APCO, hints that he'd quit if the Conservatives go ahead with plans to democratise control over local policing.

Off you go, Sir Hugh.  

As Sir Hugh must surely know, the Conservative plan would not mean politicising operational policing matters.  They would not see police officers taking orders from politicians on day-to-day policing.  Indeed, our plans would enshrine operational independence in statute for the first time.  (Sir Hugh, if you read this and still don't understand the detail, trying clicking here)  

So why is Sir Hugh bigging up a bogey-man that doesn't exist?  Why is he so fiercely against more public accountability?  Best ask ACPO and the Association of Police Authorities if this is all part of their (publicly-funded) PR campaign against localism .... 

In an astonishingly patronising and demeaning statement, Sir Hugh actually said that there are "no votes in protecting people from terrorism, from organised crime and from serial rapists that cross the country".  

Apparently, ACPO would prefer us to address what they see as the real issue in policing; how best to merge police forces.  I've yet to meet a single voter who thinks that force merger is the issue of the day.  I'm afraid this merely tells us how out of step ACPO has now become.

Extending accountability is no longer merely a question of individual directly elected Police Commissioners replacing the Police Authorities.  We need to put some question marks over the future of state-funded ACPO - it is simply not acceptable to have a publicly-funded fiefdom set policing policy and behave in this way.

Posted on 20 November 2009 by Douglas Carswell

Comments

Point well made Mr Carswell.As of now -despite numerous mistakes-no Chief Constable has been held to account. This includes Sir Ian Blair.What real penalty did he suffer other his pride? The ultimate excuse they give "We will learn lessons" is downright hypocrisy, and now a mantra for all ACPO members.

Posted on 20 November 2009 09:21 by Fenman

Can I vote for a policeman who doesn't prefer persecuting motorists to punishing burglars, muggers, rapists, feral youth?

You remember voting - it's where the powers-that-be pretend that they care about what the people want.

Posted on 20 November 2009 09:27 by Mick Anderson

I heard Sir Hugh on the radio this morning. He really hasn't understood the concept of accountability has he? It's not like the various police chiefs standing in a particular area are going to be a party political, like you say it should end up giving much more mandated power to a police authority and at the same time creating closer links with the communities who voted for the style of policing they want. He really has missed the point. But then so have many people with open primaries - they're not difficult concepts, perhaps you should send him a copy of The Plan?

Posted on 20 November 2009 10:00 by James Bartlett

I thought you would pick up on this Douglas. Probably like you and your readers, I groaned inwardly when I saw Hugh Orde's comments. To put it bluntly, policing in this Country is broken and no longer commands the respect of most ordinary people and frankly, I dont blame them. POlicing is so broken in fact that we need to start again with a blank sheet and work out exactly what we are here for. Luckily for us this exercise has already been done. We need a return to the principles of policing identified by Peel all those years ago identified here is fact: http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/laworder/9points.htm Of course, it will also require other things like no automatic early remission of sentences and building sufficient prisons to hold repeat offenders and letting Magistrates and Judges get on with it rather than controlling them through 'guidelines' and.... well I'm sure you get the picture.

I'm sure that you have already worked out that there will be a lot of oposition from the likes of Hugh Orde and his colleauges when you try to make the necessary reforms. But please, at a time when so few of Politicians seem to speak for us, keep up the good work.

Posted on 20 November 2009 10:35 by Spent Copper

I can't think of a more politicised police operation than Ian Blair's shoot a Brazilian and try to have the inquest held in secret, and Bob Quick's poodling to the political diktats of Jacqui Smith. Even the issue that caused Quick to resign was plotting a spin news story in cabinet by arresting "terrorists". Perhaps Orde would like to explain the operational political independence of these cases.

Posted on 20 November 2009 10:44 by It doesn't add up...

Hi Douglas have a look at the global warming sceptics site's it looks as though AGW is about to be blown away.If the files that are now in circulation are true and at the moment it seems that way Al Gore and friends are history.

Posted on 20 November 2009 11:21 by Peter Whale

Good riddance to any police officer or quangocrat who thinks democracy might interfere with their interests.

Time to get a big broom and start sweeping. It's only the rubbish we'll lose.

Posted on 20 November 2009 11:46 by Steve Tierney

I think this is quite useful, actually. If Sir Hugh flushes out all the Politically Correct PCs who have been destroying policing from within, you could sack the whole lot at once, Douglas. That would clear up a lot of the operational problems right there, I should think.

Getting rid of most of the useless and pointless paperwork needlessly inflicted on police officers should clear up most of the rest of it.

I find this a very encouraging sign of the effectiveness of your proposed legislation.

Posted on 20 November 2009 12:13 by Elliot Kane

In many areas the chance of meeting a serial rapist, being a terrorist victim or being a victim of organised crime is quite low.

However, the chance being a victim of disorganised crime is rather high and we would like the Police to try to do something about that.

Posted on 20 November 2009 12:34 by Paul

Douglas
What the hell is going on over there?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

Posted on 20 November 2009 13:46 by boy on a bike

I for one support Hugh Orde's comments. Force merger is the key issue. And I will tell you why. Poorly performing forces need to be held accountable. Good performing forces should, in the same way private sector companies can, be allowed to buy out the poorly performing forces. Introducing market "forces" into the public sector is, in my view the way forward. This also is in line with conservative policy.

Posted on 20 November 2009 13:54 by Aran

I used to meet with Hugh Orde frequently when he was the senior officer in charge of community relations at Scotland Yard. This kind of comment appears strange coming from a man I have always regarded as being good at thinking through policy issues. I am afraid that he has been tainted by the ACPO. This is a totally unaccountable police organisation which has been responsible for some disastrous decisions such as bringing in yardies from Jamaica to advise on drug crime (yes, I know, it is hard to believe the nation's senior police offices could be so stupid), and who imported colonial policing styles from Hong Kong to deal with public order in Britain. I fear that when Hugh Orde speaks for ACPO he is allowing the authoritarian tendencies of that organisation to cloud what has been, up to now, his sound judgement.

Posted on 20 November 2009 14:21 by John

Very well put Mr Carswell. ACPO are another expensively funded QUANGO providing a nice retirement home for senior officers, with inflated salaries and perks. If the Police want a Senior Officers Club they should fund it themselves. And have they printed the "how to ride a bike" manual in Braille yet?

Posted on 20 November 2009 15:01 by Kerry Livermore

I seem to recall that merging police forces was purely to fit in with the NUTS programme of regionalisation of the UK.

Perhaps Orde could save the taxpayer a shed load of money and just go now!

Posted on 20 November 2009 16:17 by WitteringsfromWitney

The hypocrisy of stating that policing musn't be political, whilst making obviously political statements seems to have escaped Sir Hugh.

Posted on 20 November 2009 16:48 by Chris T

To take a line from Glengarry Glenross.....
"hit the bricks pal, and beat it, 'cause you are going out."

Posted on 20 November 2009 17:27 by LT

I heard the pompous windbag Orde this morning, they are very nervous, very nervous. Expect more nonsense about community responsibility being anti-democratic! Unbelievable.

One thing does concern me, how do we reconcile local control of the police service with effective action against international terrorism and crime?

Posted on 20 November 2009 18:31 by Stu

Mr Carswell,

You make an excellent point here.

We need direct and local accountability for the police in a local area.

The fact that Sir Ian Blair is against this is a sure fire sign that it's the right way to go.

Posted on 20 November 2009 22:11 by John Chaytor

Stu,

What are MI5 and 6 for?

The Police have got too big for their boots and have excelled in working the statist system to grab summary authority and remove acountability whenever and wherever they can.

Posted on 21 November 2009 00:40 by Gareth

Its great in theory but how are you going to find local politicians who have the knowledge and wisdom to do the work of bodies such as NICE or the police authority given that under the current system people vote for the party not the person. It leaves the field open to anyone however prejudiced or bigoted they are as long as they can m be part of a small local party.

Posted on 21 November 2009 08:40 by Chris Southall

"Off you go, Sir Hugh."

Simple and to the point. Well said, sir.

Posted on 21 November 2009 09:46 by APL

Make A Comment