The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

With Winsor's appointment, the Tories have declared war on the police

This is a highly provocative move.

By Alan White Published 08 June 2012 14:58

The Home Secretary, Theresa May. Photograph: Getty Images

The appointment of Tom Winsor as Chief Inspector of Constabulary can be boiled down to two areas of debate. First, there's the desire to distance Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularies (HMIC) from the police force. Second, there's the way the government has chosen to do it.

On the first issue, the arguments have been played out across the media all day. The police will tell you that the man responsible for monitoring performance needs to understand the job, and for that reason, he needs to be drawn from the force. The counter-argument says that this leads to self-interested regulation - Nick Hardwick, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, has never run a prison, for example. The counter-counter argument runs that HMIC is less of a regulator because of the various police authorities: it's really there to make the force run more efficiently. And so on.

It would take more space than we have here to thrash all these issues out, and they're somewhat beside the point. Of five current inspectors of constabulary, two aren't police officers. Many serving police officers can see the merits of the various arguments: judging by their comments this morning, it's not really why the appointment frustrates them so much.

However the government sells it, Winsor is a deeply provocative choice. In fact "provocative" doesn't really cover it. Unless Jim Davidson's being lined up to head the Equality and Human Rights Commission you're unlikely to see a public appointment provoke this much anger any time soon. You can forgive a nervous Lynne Featherstone - who was attempting to talk about forced marriages at the time - for her somewhat-less than wholehearted endorsement of Theresa May's decision ("I believe Theresa is probably, almost certainly, right") on Radio 4 this morning.

The police hate Winsor because of the reforms suggested by his report, and the suspicion that they were simply an expression of Conservative political will. The issues surrounding them are hugely complex. Take pay: you tell me you don't like the fact that the basic salary for a typical officer at entry level is nearly £2,000 more than a teacher. I tell you teachers don't have a job where people try to stab them, unless they're at a particularly rough school. You say the police overtime bill is enormous. I tell you teachers aren't expected to be called out to work at 3am.

This is before we get on to Brian Paddick and his massive pension. You don't like it. I point out that Paddick doesn't have the same opportunities for career progression as he would in, say the army, and given he was a bright graduate, never mind the rest of the public sector - the state needs to have something to attract him away from coining it in at Goldman Sachs or some other City hell-hole, and if you're the government what better way than by promising him a load of money further down the line once you're safely out of office?

So we go away from our discussion having reached the conclusion that politicians are disingenuous scumbags, which is pretty much the same conclusion the police have reached for different reasons. And these days they seem more likely to blog or tweet these views than the average Guardian journalist (one of the morning’s more interesting posts on the surrounding issues was published here).

This is an unusual state of affairs. The received thinking in Whitehall is that law and order is just such a big deal for voters that if there's one branch of the public sector you don't want to upset, it's the cops. The trouble is that there are now just too many strong emotions and vested interests at play to come to any kind of meaningful conclusion. Paul McKeever of The Police Federation says the appointment will lead to senior officers leaving the force. But then yesterday, McKeever essentially claimed the Federation predicted the 2011 riots, which given the way they played out suggests he’s either prone to getting overexcited or officers don't listen to him as often as they should.

This declaration of war - and it is just that; a fierce rebuttal to the heckling May received when she spoke to the Police Federation last month - marks an unprecedented worsening in the relationship between government and police. Many of us have plenty of time for the argument that the force needs reform - it has been left untouched for 30 years - and the furious reaction to the initial Winsor report showed exactly why this has been the case. The question, therefore, is whether the government really needed to rub salt in the wound. This morning, Nick Herbert told Radio 4: "In his report he showed how he is able to get under the skin of policing." He's certainly got that right. I can only agree with Matt Cavanagh of the Institute for Public Policy Research. It's a "risky if not reckless choice".

But we're not there yet. Winsor has yet to meet the Home Affairs Select Committee, and one member, Steve McCabe MP, has already said the appointment of Winsor would mean the government was seeking to "politicise and neuter the police". Keith Vaz MP found it regrettable "those without experience of the frontline have been instructed to draw up the plans for our police force" a precedent also frowned upon by the outgoing inspector, Sir Denis O'Connor. Vaz and McCabe are, of course, both Labour, and this is the problem: every decision Winsor makes - whether right or wrong - is likely to be seen through a political lens.

Alan White's work has appeared in the Observer, Times, Private Eye, The National & TLS. He lives in London and tweets as @aljwhite. As John Heale, he is the author of One Blood: Inside Britain's Gang Culture, republished this year.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Police

More from Alan White

View the discussion thread.

52 comments

Thu, 2012-06-28 22:50 — maiamaia (not verified)

the man in charge of investing Norway's entire public pension earns a high but not extremely high wage. It would get rid of self-interested people only interested in money, power, connections and showing off. It would put old Etonians right off - you've got to admit, it needs trying now!

Thu, 2012-06-28 22:43 — maiamaia (not verified)

The thing that should attract people to public service is the desire to serve. We're always being told that carework 'is so attractive to people because, despite the hours and pay' (you have to drive around, unpaid, at your own expense, between brief jobs if you do homecare - a work method considered abusive when applied to Burger King employees a few years back, and if you work through the night on the standard 24hr shift, 8 hours go unpaid, as 'you could have been asleep') 'despite the pay, you are able to gain the great reward of knowing you are useful to people'. Where somebody is always saying 'caring and sensitivity cost nothing' because, you know, your skills are lowpaid so they are worthless. This from a job that will never allow you a pension, a decent contract, a mortgage, and will probably wreck your back, where 'burning out' (having a breakdown) is considered normal. Where the agency employing you demands £50 an hour but pays you £6. Where stacking shelves will earn you twice as much (overtime). But MPs are in need of special rewards...because?

Thu, 2012-06-28 22:47 — maiamaia (not verified)

Sorry, meant to say, not abnormal pay etc. attracts the best to the job in Norway - the man in charge of the whole nation's pension pot has an above average but not extremely high wage for instance, and this seems to work out there. I just think we should try it! Logically, it would weed out the self-interested shits who just want to get rich, connections and power. And old Etonians come to think of it - now, you've got to admit it's a winner! £20,000 pa i say, that's triple the highest income i ever earnt, that's plenty to live on in style.

Wed, 2012-06-13 22:33 — Dogs Body (not verified)

Good informative article. What got me was how the BBC reports termed the decision as a 'brave' one. Brave? They must have a very different definition of brave than the rest of us. Mind you, the Tories already have their man inside the Beeb in the shape of Chris Patten. Putting in puppets is the next best thing to privatising I guess.
Well written Alan.

Mon, 2012-06-11 08:06 — Herbert Dereen (not verified)

I am very enjoyed for this blog. Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks a lot for enjoying this beauty blog with me. I am appreciating it very much! Looking forward to another great blog. Good luck to the author! all the best!

http://audrea44shealy.insanejournal.com/274.html

Mon, 2012-06-11 01:19 — Bill23 (not verified)

Anybody wondering why Ms May intends to put educated people from other backgrounds inside the police force, will find examples below!

Sun, 2012-06-10 12:34 — test-test (not verified)

Sorry, but the whole thrust of this OP is that the police are a sacred cow and if the boys in blue don't want a Chief Inspector of Constabulary who might rock the boat and annoy the vested interests, then they're entitled to exercise a veto. Nowhere in this article are any arguments against the recommendations of the Winsor report deployed; it's only asserted that the police didn't like it.

And as ever with some of the British public, it seems that if a state sector vested interest wants something, it should get it. The same goes with the NHS and the teaching profession. Some of us seem to get all misty-eyed when the police, the doctors or the teachers kick up a stink.

And, as usual, we see the Labour Party jumping on the opportunistic bandwagon. They seem to be the least scrupulous opposition in 50 years.

Sun, 2012-06-10 11:34 — Alan White

Interesting stuff people. If I could be so bold, could I just drop this in the mix... http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2012/02/police-crime-work...

Sun, 2012-06-10 12:27 — Bill23 (not verified)

Any relation to the other al that has commented. Thats not very balanced is it, but then money is involved, and where else outside of the public sector could you make that. For a bit more balance what about that innocent West Country woman having her face smashed to the ground in a police cell. Or officers leaving Gilfoyle in prison just so they could save face. The lack of ethics disgusts many.

Sun, 2012-06-10 08:49 — journiman (not verified)

Clearly there are some people writing on here who have no concept of Policing, unless it's from the villains side. UK Policing is not just a job, it is a career that is highly respected by Police forces around the world, and very particularly the USA. I was a 30 year officer and I worked with USA Police as well. We should never have the same type of Policing that exists in Los Angeles or New York. Do you really think the public will be drawn to Police if they ALL carry weapons. Get real!
All this nonsense about masons is old hat and completely outdated. The Police service is made up now with a majority of young officers, I can't think of any who are masons. I am not, but if they were, it is highly unlikely that being one will affect how they deal with the local yob. If anything, they might have more sympathy.
The public have been fed all this nonsense by the government that Policing is just another job. Rubbish, where else are you on 24 hr call out, your leave can be cancelled at the drop of a hat, you pay 12% yes 12% of your salary into the pension. No one else collects body parts from train suicides, non one else sit's inside a crashed car trying to keep the driver alive whilst they bleed profusely, no one else sits with the 15 year old who's just been raped or the 9 year old boy who's just be sodomised. If you think Policining is just "another job" you need to spend some time with them. Visit the wife of officers who have been killed in the line of duty. No politician ever died from putting a suit on and going to work in the morning. How can they ever tell us how to do the job if they haven't been at the coal face. The public deserves a great Police service and they will get that, but only if Police have the toold and pay for the job.

Fri, 2012-07-27 12:47 — hogg22 (not verified)

Dont social workers, nurses, doctors and fireman all have to deal with the same sort of things?
12% pension maybe, but you are still the highest paid public service by quite a distance.
Also you talk about the wives of officers who die? What about the thousands of family members who mourn their loved ones who were beaten to death by police or Ian Tomlinson's family for example. Yes it is sad some police die, it is even sadder however that the police are prepared to protect murderers to save face.
Its only going to get worst with G4S too!

Sun, 2012-06-10 10:11 — Bill23 (not verified)

"deal with the local yob. If anything, they might have more sympathy."
What a statement, some masons might have good intentions, but all think of themselves and other masons first according to the masonic motto. You're right about it being old hat though, now that we understand how unintended consequences work on a scientific level. In Dorset the outcome of mice and men has had consequences that could only be described as evil, and anybody who can't see that should not be in a position to tell others what to do.

Sun, 2012-06-10 09:44 — Bill23 (not verified)

The police are inherently untrustworthy and often criminal by the standards of others. Clearly this one is telling porkies as he fears losing his overpaid job,(and that is all it is a job that anybody could do: I lived next to a 'police close' of 12 families for many years and I understand the criminality within the force) : check out this video which shows the chief constable of Dorset in masonic garb! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MAFM-IYFiU&noredirect=1

Sat, 2012-06-09 20:24 — martybee (not verified)

I remember the Policing during the 1984/5 miners strike....well boys its your turn for the kicking now,.. so dont moan..as ye sow etc.

Sat, 2012-06-09 18:14 — Al Jackson (not verified)

A few things.

1. You can tell a balanced comment from a zealot's comment. The latter fail to acknowlege any other point of view. You also cannot debate with a zealot.
2. I read the story about 15% on patrol and that is because they work shifts and go on leave. 15x5 + leave = 100%. Lies, damn lies etc.

Sat, 2012-06-09 19:31 — Bill23 (not verified)

This is the problem with the police they don't seem to understand how these forums work. One person puts forward an argument and then the other person puts forward a counter argument, and the readers decide. The argument "were so great and its a hard job" repeated again and again doesn't work; there needs to be substance. Likewise, long speeches are never read because it shows you cannot refine the argument: people want E = MC2, V = I*R, or V-E+F = 2, not debatable and often irrelevant details that make it look like you are scared of losing overpaid jobs.

Sun, 2012-06-10 01:18 — AL Jackson (not verified)

So the two "arguments" are,

1. We're mis-understood, because we deal with all the dross in society that slips through everyone's fingers, that is never reported. We have to be capable of dealing with a violent drunk one minute, then using superhuman skills switch to being an expert on seat belt law as we speak to the nice middle class motorist . Because we are the last unarmed police force in the world, and murder rates here are a fraction of what they are in the US, it makes perfect sense to import the US model here.
2. You're all a bunch of thugs, who love to beat people up, and enjoy strutting around in your uniforms. You were fed loads of money by the last labour government and have done very little to earn it. You're corrupt and are pretty much chasing the clock till you can retire on your gold plated pensions. Every one of you is racist, and you're squealing because you're now joining the 20th century at best.

If you're a zealot pick 1 or 2 and crack on.

If you're a balanced member of society, find a point somewhere in between.

Sun, 2012-06-10 19:13 — Bill23 (not verified)

The problem is that the police are drawn from the least educated in society, and this proves it.
My point was that the police themselves don't put forward relevant arguments; and you have completely misinterpreted what I said. Where did you go to school for gods sake!
If you are an officer how many other things have you misunderstood, and how many people have suffered because of your ignorance.

Mon, 2012-06-11 16:20 — AlJackson (not verified)

I'm not a police officer. I'm a retired warrant officer from the Royal Artillery with an MSc. But I do know that one thing the police should not do is judge people based on assumptions. Your response is littered with them. Assumptions on job, education etc. I'll put you in group two for the zealots then.

Mon, 2012-06-11 21:34 — Bill23 (not verified)

You people really are dim. I stated that I lived next to a "police close" for many years. Also that I have known school bullies who became police.
Like a pit-bull, power and a tiny brain is a dangerous combination.

Mon, 2012-06-11 16:22 — AlJackson (not verified)

PS:- Your statement about my schooling was actually a question and should have ended with a "?", not a "!". Where did you go to school?

Mon, 2012-06-11 21:30 — Bill23 (not verified)

Wrong yet again, I did not end with an exclamation, but a full stop.
How often do you have to prove my case before you realise that the police are not well educated. It's just a fact; and it looks to everybody else, like excessive pay has caused them to become delusional in several respects.

Sun, 2012-07-01 09:57 — Donotjudge (not verified)

Bill23, you are an arrogant ill judged person to make wild sweeping statements such as you have done. I am a Police Officer and I am neither a bully nor poorly educated. What I am however, is a locally appointed person who makes life and death decisions on an almost daily basis to protect the general population from destroying themselves through the blind bigotry you have displayed.

Mon, 2012-07-02 09:07 — Bill23 (not verified)

P.S. "to protect the general population from destroying themselves "
You are either very stupid indeed or crazy, and I would go with the latter having seen how the stress affects police families.
The fact is that if the police insist on it being a job for life, then they should have a regular mental check-up to protect the population who they attack at the drop of a hat, in order to make themselves look useful.

Mon, 2012-07-02 08:53 — Bill23 (not verified)

First the hypocrisy of your chosen name, but that aside, I lived next to a police close of 12 families for most of my life, and I can tell you that generally speaking they are not smart enough to make life and death decisions. It doesn't matter how much you are paid it will not change your IQ, or the fact that the bar on the IQ test is not set high enough.

If the police were a bit smarter then they would have the decency to remove the chief constable of Dorset, and the officer who caused the death of my parents. Until then I will continue to punish you.

Mon, 2012-07-02 08:52 — Bill23 (not verified)

Sat, 2012-06-09 14:32 — matthew fox (not verified)

Why not reform the security services?

Let the person who regulates public parks run MI5 and MI6

Sat, 2012-06-09 14:17 — Steve AM (not verified)

What can people do to stop the Tories from wrecking and giving lucrative contracts to their cronies with public money?
When all is privatised it will be to late and it doesn’t matter if Cameron or the rest get re-elected because they will by then have the money and lots of it from the public purse for themselves.

Sat, 2012-06-09 04:38 — Silican (not verified)

The NHS has been virtually destroyed by the notion that half-wits with no medical knowledge can sort out its problems by sitting around in meetings ad infinitum while bandying about clever sounding business-speak so as to disguise their total ignorance of anything to do with health. Their jobs are only sustainable if they manage to continuously impose change for the sake of change. This creates the illusion of productivity while being its opposite. Change also requires, from the managers' perspective, yet more managers. In living systems the closest analogies are the cancers,ever growing, insidiously spreading, forever disfiguring, constantly consuming and ultimately fatal. The police seem, for the most part, to have avoided this malignant influence but appear to be importing this grocery shop model as if it has served other public services well. One potentially positive side-effect of this folly though is that the almost uniform criminality of the political elite might begin to be investigated properly and punished appropriately. Blair ,out of office ,has a particular penchant for selling himself to nasty oil rich dictators; in office the impression was that anyone with money would do. Cameron has 'intimate' dinners with strangers for £250k or so. We are expected to believe that these people don't expect anything for their money and , of course, Cameron has no idea why he has invited these strangers to share his dinner. No detective worthy of the name would accept this absurd proposition. So maybe we should welcome a police force alienated from the government.

Fri, 2012-06-08 22:47 — Karlwasright

Reform is undoubtedly needed. At the ground level, we have a bunch of overpaid thickos, who routinely lie (i.e. commit crimes) as a matter of course to secure convictions, protect their mates etc. At the higher levels we have completely out of touch management, that has presided over the serious corruption uncovered in recent times.

Policing only works with the consent of the population, never without it. The police lost huge credibility and destroyed most of the trust held in them by local populations, with their handling of both the student fees protests, and last summer's riots.

They are not fit for purpose, having evolved into a political thuggery force, when they are not chasing and falsely arresting Islamic 'terrorists'. Time they got back to grass roots, and worked for the local population who pay their wages. I applaud any move such as this assuming it is genuine, and not just a nasty backlash from a Home Secretary scorned. Unfortunately, I don't have much confidence that it is.

Sat, 2012-06-09 14:41 — A Cop (not verified)

You clearly haven't given this much thought or been able to think at all before posting your response.
Yes, some reforms are needed. The type of reform that allow police officers to get out on patrol instead of completing forms in triplicate to satisfy the hunger of the Home Office statistic gatherers. The type of reform that allow officers to use discretion when dealing with low-level offences to save tying them up in custody suites for hours on end when they could be tackling other more serious crimes. Reform vehicle and equipment purchasing to save money and so on. We are agreed on that - some reform is needed.
My "employer" is not the taxpayer it is Her Majesty The Queen. I swore an oath to her when I joined the service and I am not nor will I be subservient to any politician. I pay my taxes just the same as the majority of the population. I can't speak for you because I don't know your personal circumstances. So in answer to this point that you raise do I get a say in what the police do or do you not count me as "local population". Given your viewpoint I could also be forgiven for thinking that I pay towards my salary, uniform and equipment too?
As for the handling of the riots last year - the police were called upon at short notice to quell mass disturbances around the country created by those who believe they are entitled to more than they have earned and did so off the back of a legitimate protest outside a police station where a police-involved shooting took place. The only thugs on the street were those inflicting grievous harm on police officers, firefighters, paramedics and those wrecking communities and destroying businesses. The police themselves protested in London in May.
In relation to student protests: Did you see them being "kettled" or throwing fire extinguishers off rooftops or smashing shop windows? No you didn't. If people who want to exercise their right to protest did so in the same dignified way that the police did you wouldn't have anything to complain about.
Not fit for purpose? I don't really need to point out recent high-profile murder investigations that have seen suspects arrested and charged. No doubt in your world that was pure "luck" ? What about the investigation of the 7/7 terror attacks? "luck" as well? What about the investigations into the riots themselves and all of the offenders arrested and convicted? Luck too no doubt? Then we have brave officers who get shot, deliberately run down, stabbed, and in the case of our friends in NI this week having pipe bombs thrown at them after being lured to addresses by terrorists? Not fit for purpose?
The only glimmer of hope for you is your closing sentence where you show a faint degree of scepticism for the motive for these reforms. And this is where it gets interesting:
A number of years ago David Cameron oversaw the Sheehey review of policing. It was his "baby" and it was pretty much rejected. He wasn't at all happy about that and there are others in his party who have said as much in the last couple of weeks. So he has come to power with police reform very much at the top of his agenda. It was no coincidence that Tom Winsor was appointed to carry out an "independent" review. Tom Winsor's review wasn't independent however. He was given a "script" by the government and his findings had to fit the already pre-defined outcome. Winsor admits that the examples he gave of conversations with officers were false. The officers themselves were never consulted. Winsor claims he made hand-written notes during his review and that some of these notes were "muddled" and led to him publishing incorrect data. At the time of conducting the review Winsor was (and still is) a partner in the firm Case & White who recently advised both G4S and Lincolnshire police on their contract to allow G4S to take over some of their policing functions. Lord Condon (ex Met Commissioner) is on the panel of directors and no doubt there are government ministers and other Lords who are shareholders. Nobody knows how much what his law firm charged in terms of fees yet Mrs May at the Police Federation conference naively stated that he was independent because he did it as an individual and not through his law-firm. Now he wants to be Chief of HMIC when he has no working knowledge nor understanding of policing in the UK. It would be like me coming to your office telling you how you should be doing your job after you've been doing it for 20 odd years. You're not going to like that one bit and are you going to respect anyone who does that to you when you know that this has been manipulated by a scorned prime-minister who quietly seeks revenge for being spurned all those years ago?
In summary what this all means is 16000 less police officers on the streets. More G4S security staff doing policing roles - including investigating crime while funding to the police is cut further and further. Mr Winsor comes in and starts throwing his weight around while Mrs May stands behind him pulling his strings so that the government can be seen directly interfering with policing. The implementation of politically affiliated PCC's telling Chief Constables what they should be doing is yet further evidence of the police being politically influenced in this country. The police in the UK have historically been apolitical which has ensured that it hasn't become a dictatorial state like many that exist around the world and whose abuses we see far too frequently in the media.
Theresa May is David Cameron's puppet - plain and simple. Non-Stick Dave has done this to ensure that when the wheel comes off it won't come back to bite him. Tom Winsor will be the first scapegoat and Theresa May will be second. Make no mistake about it - the government is going to destroy the independence of the Office of Constable. You may have your grievances with the police for whatever reason but then you tell me what organisation you know of that gets it 100% right 100% of the time? What we have now is infinitely better than anything that Winsor or this government have in mind for the future.
The police see what is coming but by the time you and everyone else have caught up with us it will be too late I'm afraid.

Sat, 2012-06-09 22:51 — Karlwasright

Facts : You do professionally lie, you do fit people up, you are corrupt, you operate a masonic system, your clear up rates are a disgrace, you are not worth what we pay you for, you should be accountable but are not, your management are incompetent.............I've worn the 'y' key out !!

You know all this, but can't accept it, and are therefore unable to deal with it. All the above is bad enough, but believe me, you have lost the trust and that is why your job is so difficult. Time to come out from behind your riot shields, and understand what drives society. It is not a force of thugs, but real people. Ever wonder why you have to socialise only with your own kind ?

Sun, 2012-06-10 21:05 — YetAnotherCopper (not verified)

You're mistaken.

Sun, 2012-06-10 19:04 — jaded48 (not verified)

Change your sweeping stereo-typing from police to a "race" and see if it would get published.

Sat, 2012-06-09 17:16 — Bill23 (not verified)

When real organisations get it wrong they do something about it, not like you and your masonic buddies.
The length of your speech indicates two things; first that you are a highly paid officer; and second that you are unable to produce concise replies - something that is common to all self replicating parasitic bureaucrats - and no amount of money will increase your IQ, or improve your true moral character.

Sat, 2012-06-09 22:35 — A Cop (not verified)

1. I'm not a mason
2. I'm a Constable
3. My morals are beyond question - are yours?
4. Not sure where you get the correlation between money and IQ but if there is your reply suggests you have no money.

Is that concise enough for you?

Mon, 2012-06-11 01:03 — Bill23 (not verified)

Yes my morals are beyond question you arrogant fool. Not only that they are beyond the comprehension of some ignorant officers in Dorset, who only ever think of themselves.
On the second point which you failed to understand, I was pointing out the fact that officers are starting to believe their own myth. That is, a chief constable who is on a 150k is still an idiot who was drawn from the least educated in society, and should know his place.
I also think it's highly unlikly that a constable would make such a long speech. You people are just after the money and we can see right through you.
P.S. Only a thug would invite somebody to a conference and abuse them as you did with Ms May. Did you understand that she intends to to put as least some educated people inside the force.

Fri, 2012-06-08 23:39 — jaded48 (not verified)

You're an idiot.You haven't a clue what it is to be a police officer.
Freedom for Tooting you pretend revolutionary.........

Sat, 2012-06-09 09:35 — Bill23 (not verified)

To be an officer means, failed the 11 plus, bully of the shcool, hated by prefects and teachers, delusions of grandure dut to excessive pay, allegiance to the freemasons and any other officer, a total failure to understand right and wrong based on the laws of nature, and cognative dissonance because you're really still just the thick kid..

Sat, 2012-06-09 20:40 — jaded48 (not verified)

You've missed a few cliches half-wit. Come outside without your uniform on,who's sha**ing your wife while you're on nights?,you were bullied at school (nearly right above).Etc etc.

Mon, 2012-06-11 01:34 — Bill23 (not verified)

No, I was able to make 'Moggy' the cock of our school laugh. He was able to get a job as a paid thug however.

This like every other posting by the police shows the same thing; gross stupidity and an undereducated force. You're just not good enough, and have been rumbled by the internet. Best to keep your mouths closed really.

Fri, 2012-06-08 22:25 — Andy Sams (not verified)

Not only is the man not qualified, having no policing experience, and even needing an advisor to compile his reports, he is clearly not independent of government control.
His reports virtually mirror Mr Camerons' plans, stated before he became PM; on his intended plans of how to "reform" the police service of elected.
Additionally, the firm in which Mr Winsor is a partner; advises G4S on bidding for police contracts. This is obviously a conflict of interests.
Until recently HMIC had to have been an ex senior police officer, and it seems apparent these rules have been changed, and Winsor has been supported by the Home Office as a reward for supporting this government in his reports.

I would also challenge the Home Secretarys' independence in her dealings with the police as, as a shareholder in Prudential, who are in turn one of the major shareholders in G4S, she has a financial interest in their gaining more police contracts, which she & Winsor are in a position to do.

Sat, 2012-06-09 19:37 — Steve AM (not verified)

I don’t really think it matters to the Tories, they have a ma in charge of the Treasury who hasn’t a clue but likes the perks of being in Government and Chancellor.

Fri, 2012-06-08 22:07 — Vince Justin Marce (not verified)

Looks more like this Tory Led Coalition is building an effective Mafia Organisation !

Fri, 2012-06-08 21:30 — Davidaslindsay (not verified)

The Government is busily creating a "National Crime Agency" answerable only to Ministers, staffed by civil servants rather than by sworn constables, and with power over Chief Police Officers. And now, it wants to appoint Tom Winsor, of all people, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary. As much as anything else, anyone who has used the trains recently can only wonder how having been a "rail regulator" qualifies him to be anything at all.

The Union as a first principle, any concept of English identity, a universal postal service, the Queen's Highways, the National Health Service, keeping Sunday special, a free vote on the redefinition of marriage, a referendum on continued membership of the EU, the historic regimental system, the State action necessary in order to maintain the work of charities and of churches, the State action necessary in order to maintain a large and thriving middle class, and now the police: the only way to save Tory Britain is to vote Labour.

As Tory Britain manifestly understands more, and more, and more. But does the Labour Party? Is it prepared to purge itself of the people who do not? When will it do so? Why has it not already done so?

Fri, 2012-06-08 20:48 — Tesco Shelf Stacker (not verified)

I don't care who he is so long as he reforms the service and brings the police back under public control - local police that are accountable to the local people.

Local people know what they want their local police to do about local crime and they need a much bigger say in how the local police force is run - the bond between the police force and the local public it 'serves' is not strong enough.

The UK police force ruined by highly centralised control that see's local police falling over themselves to comply with the latest mandates from central government. In the USA - the people of most American states elect their local sheriffs - that doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

Sat, 2012-06-09 14:20 — Steve AM (not verified)

It won’t be under public control it will be under the control of unaccountable companies.
As for the USA elected Sheriffs do not bring safer streets. Crime in The USA is rampant compared to here.

Fri, 2012-06-08 19:30 — David Ireland (not verified)

Hahahaha! No, Herbert.

Fri, 2012-06-08 23:47 — Herbert (not verified)

Oh yes, David Ireland. It's the truth and you can't pretend otherwise.

Fri, 2012-06-08 18:03 — Bill23 (not verified)

About time. Their excessive pay has caused them to become delusional.
Lets hope this teaches them to treat their betters - which is almost everybody - with a bit of respect. Their attitude of never admitting mistakes and supporting their "collages" no matter what, just makes them look like stupid thugs, and only a total imbecile could fail to see it.