Conservative elected as Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner

Conservative elected as Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner

Conservative elected as Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner

First published in News by

CONSERVATIVE candidate Anthony Stansfeld has been elected as the first ever Thames Valley Police and Crime Commissioner.

The vote went to second preferences after nobody secured 50% or more in the first round.

Chief Constable Sara Thornton said: “I would like to congratulate Mr Stansfeld on his election victory and look forward to working together on behalf of the people in the Thames Valley.”

Tim Starkey, Labour's contender, missed out after the vote went to a straight contest between the two.

For more coverage and details of voting see our live blog HERE.

Turnout has been extremely low, with less than 14 per cent of eligible votes taking part in the ballot across Thames Valley.

In the second round Anthony Stansfeld got 18,227 votes, giving him a total of 94,238.

In an exclusive interview with the BFP this evening, Mr Stansfeld gave a brief outline of his vision for Buckinghamshire policing.

He said: “Buckinghamshire is a hugely varied area with major towns and at the same you have a hell of a lot of large rural areas.

“The priority is going to be different for the towns compared to the countryside.

“The fundamental crime for most people is household burglary. The thing that leads up to it is anti-social behaviour and if you don't stop that the ones usually involved with that progress to burglary.

"The other issue is of absolutely persistent offenders who commit crime after crime. It's keeping them under control.

"One thing is clear, crime is usually committed by a very small number of people but they go on doing it time and time again and we have to tackle that.”

Speaking about the criticism about low turnouts, he said: “If you have a stand alone election for the first time for something new you will always get a low turnout.

“It's compounded by being in the depths of the winter when you have dark evenings and dark mornings, people come back from work and they're tired and they want to put their feet up in front of the TV rather than go to a cold and dark polling station.”

Next election will have a far higher turnout, he believes.

Asked if it concerned him that he had been elected by such a small number of voters, he replied: “I'm not concerned, I'd be far more concerned if I hadn't been elected.”

He said he will be “jumping in the deep end” next week.

On Tuesday he will visit the office for the first time as the new chief before meeting with all senior officers at 11am.

He added: “It's a tremendous privilege to be elected as the first police and crime commissioner. I feel relieved and excited by the prospect.”

Tim Starkey got 13,772 second preferences, giving him 70,403 votes overall.

He tweeted: "Thanks to all who voted for me! We fought a very positive campaign, gutted couldn't quite make it."

The summary of results

The Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) Election results in Thames Valley are as follows:

Anthony Stansfeld, Conservative – 94,238 votes (after two stages)

Tim Starkey, Labour – 70,403 votes (after two stages)

Geoff Howard, Independent – 31,716 votes

John Orrell Howson, Liberal Democrats – 20,511 votes

Barry Cooper, UKIP – 19,324 votes

Patience Tayo Awe – Independent – 14,878 votes

The result was formally declared at Aylesbury Vale District Council, where the Police Area Returning Officer for the Thames Valley is Andrew Grant, the Chief Executive. A total of 226,512 votes were cast giving an overall turnout of 13.3 per cent.

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:31pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Wycombe Elector says...

Congratulations Anthony Stansfeld!
Congratulations Anthony Stansfeld! Wycombe Elector
  • Score: 0

4:45pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Welwyn Dowd says...

No problem now with carrying out the Home Secretary's cuts to police. A Labour PCC would have been terribly inconvenient in that respect. What was that, Sooty? The LibDems came fourth?
No problem now with carrying out the Home Secretary's cuts to police. A Labour PCC would have been terribly inconvenient in that respect. What was that, Sooty? The LibDems came fourth? Welwyn Dowd
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Wycombe Elector says...

Welwyn Dowd wrote:
No problem now with carrying out the Home Secretary's cuts to police. A Labour PCC would have been terribly inconvenient in that respect. What was that, Sooty? The LibDems came fourth?
Budgets put in place due to 13 years of the most incompetent fiscal management this country has ever seen.
[quote][p][bold]Welwyn Dowd[/bold] wrote: No problem now with carrying out the Home Secretary's cuts to police. A Labour PCC would have been terribly inconvenient in that respect. What was that, Sooty? The LibDems came fourth?[/p][/quote]Budgets put in place due to 13 years of the most incompetent fiscal management this country has ever seen. Wycombe Elector
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Fri 16 Nov 12

yog says...

Welwyn Dowd wrote:
No problem now with carrying out the Home Secretary's cuts to police. A Labour PCC would have been terribly inconvenient in that respect. What was that, Sooty? The LibDems came fourth?
Tim's a Lib Dem anyway!
[quote][p][bold]Welwyn Dowd[/bold] wrote: No problem now with carrying out the Home Secretary's cuts to police. A Labour PCC would have been terribly inconvenient in that respect. What was that, Sooty? The LibDems came fourth?[/p][/quote]Tim's a Lib Dem anyway! yog
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Darren Hayday says...

This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote!

Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..)

But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time"

This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead.
We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election.
Party candidates should have been barred from standing.
I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems.
They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters!
This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote! Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..) But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time" This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead. We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election. Party candidates should have been barred from standing. I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems. They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters! Darren Hayday
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Fri 16 Nov 12

motco says...

I agree that it shouldn't be political. The last government politicised the police force anyway, this could have reversed that to an extent.
I agree that it shouldn't be political. The last government politicised the police force anyway, this could have reversed that to an extent. motco
  • Score: 0

5:39pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Wycombe Elector says...

Darren Hayday wrote:
This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote!

Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..)

But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time"

This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead.
We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election.
Party candidates should have been barred from standing.
I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems.
They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters!
'... none of the Thames Valley candidates didn't have any prior experience in the police force...'

Great use of English!
[quote][p][bold]Darren Hayday[/bold] wrote: This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote! Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..) But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time" This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead. We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election. Party candidates should have been barred from standing. I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems. They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters![/p][/quote]'... none of the Thames Valley candidates didn't have any prior experience in the police force...' Great use of English! Wycombe Elector
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Voyeur says...

At least Trade Unions can answer back when anyone criticises them for a low turnout in a strike ballot. We always get a bigger turnout than for the PCC one official is bound to say.
At least Trade Unions can answer back when anyone criticises them for a low turnout in a strike ballot. We always get a bigger turnout than for the PCC one official is bound to say. Voyeur
  • Score: 0

5:46pm Fri 16 Nov 12

J B Blackett says...

Even more dead-beat politicians, lick-spittles , time-servers and party hacks to add to the current piles of evil-smelling ordure.
.
All with a salary up to £100,000 plus 'expenses' too.
.
Just what we wanted. Thanks a lot.
Even more dead-beat politicians, lick-spittles , time-servers and party hacks to add to the current piles of evil-smelling ordure. . All with a salary up to £100,000 plus 'expenses' too. . Just what we wanted. Thanks a lot. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

6:16pm Fri 16 Nov 12

DocD says...

Low turn out is also about disllusionment with policing in TVP area particularly amongst poor, working class & minority communities. Over policing,
surveillance,harassm
ent/brutality is a reality - 3 deaths of Black people in 4.5 years is testimony to this.

TVP motto is: SIT PAX IN VALLE TAMESIS. "Let there be peace in the Thames Valley".Now Stansfield is elected What will he do do to stop harassment/brutality
, mass surveillance/crimina
lisation of poor & BME people?

http://justice4paps.
wordpress.com/
Low turn out is also about disllusionment with policing in TVP area particularly amongst poor, working class & minority communities. Over policing, surveillance,harassm ent/brutality is a reality - 3 deaths of Black people in 4.5 years is testimony to this. TVP motto is: SIT PAX IN VALLE TAMESIS. "Let there be peace in the Thames Valley".Now Stansfield is elected What will he do do to stop harassment/brutality , mass surveillance/crimina lisation of poor & BME people? http://justice4paps. wordpress.com/ DocD
  • Score: 0

6:48pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Helen 123 says...

Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?
Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid? Helen 123
  • Score: 0

7:34pm Fri 16 Nov 12

J B Blackett says...

Helen 123 wrote:
Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?
The rumour is it could be Clint Eastwood - with a commensurate salary.
.
Tin stars all round.
.
But not for The Good - just for The Bad and The Ugly. And for a Fistful (armful ?) of Dollars too.
[quote][p][bold]Helen 123[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?[/p][/quote]The rumour is it could be Clint Eastwood - with a commensurate salary. . Tin stars all round. . But not for The Good - just for The Bad and The Ugly. And for a Fistful (armful ?) of Dollars too. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Fri 16 Nov 12

bobby698 says...

Well done everyone who voted for the Tory Puppet - he will now ensure the 20% reduction in police numbers goes through smoothly in Thames Valley.
If you think you don't see a copper now, wait until 2015!!
Well done everyone who voted for the Tory Puppet - he will now ensure the 20% reduction in police numbers goes through smoothly in Thames Valley. If you think you don't see a copper now, wait until 2015!! bobby698
  • Score: 0

9:40pm Fri 16 Nov 12

daemonite says...

I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote.
I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote. daemonite
  • Score: 0

9:56pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Helen 123 says...

J B Blackett wrote:
Helen 123 wrote:
Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?
The rumour is it could be Clint Eastwood - with a commensurate salary.
.
Tin stars all round.
.
But not for The Good - just for The Bad and The Ugly. And for a Fistful (armful ?) of Dollars too.
That's a shame I thought it may have been Arnie the terminator but Clint will do nicely, he can act as the Enforcer whilst putting himself in the line of fire!
[quote][p][bold]J B Blackett[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen 123[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?[/p][/quote]The rumour is it could be Clint Eastwood - with a commensurate salary. . Tin stars all round. . But not for The Good - just for The Bad and The Ugly. And for a Fistful (armful ?) of Dollars too.[/p][/quote]That's a shame I thought it may have been Arnie the terminator but Clint will do nicely, he can act as the Enforcer whilst putting himself in the line of fire! Helen 123
  • Score: 0

11:53pm Fri 16 Nov 12

yog says...

daemonite wrote:
I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote.
The whole process was wrong. Teresa May refused to allow candidates the free delivery of election material that you get in a General Election.

The leaflets for a constituency of Wycombe would cost the best part of £2000, multiply that by the number of local authorities in Thames Valley and you are looking at a bill of £32,000.

The electorate was 1.7 million! There was no way on earth that candidates/parties could afford that when many rely on local members for donations and no way they could be delivered without the free delivery option.

Democracy is expensive and the clear lesson is that you can't do it on the cheap.
[quote][p][bold]daemonite[/bold] wrote: I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote.[/p][/quote]The whole process was wrong. Teresa May refused to allow candidates the free delivery of election material that you get in a General Election. The leaflets for a constituency of Wycombe would cost the best part of £2000, multiply that by the number of local authorities in Thames Valley and you are looking at a bill of £32,000. The electorate was 1.7 million! There was no way on earth that candidates/parties could afford that when many rely on local members for donations and no way they could be delivered without the free delivery option. Democracy is expensive and the clear lesson is that you can't do it on the cheap. yog
  • Score: 0

12:29am Sat 17 Nov 12

faircuppa says...

Quite right yogi, it's silly money. A return to soapboxes would be cheap. It is absurd that people talk about non-political police. They carry out the laws passed by a political parliament. The former police authority was loaded with councillors. Then there's the naive idea that Independents are non-political! The risk is you don't know what their true politics are.
Competition -name any current independent's former political party or which way they vote.........
e.g. Darren Haydale - Tory.
Quite right yogi, it's silly money. A return to soapboxes would be cheap. It is absurd that people talk about non-political police. They carry out the laws passed by a political parliament. The former police authority was loaded with councillors. Then there's the naive idea that Independents are non-political! The risk is you don't know what their true politics are. Competition -name any current independent's former political party or which way they vote......... e.g. Darren Haydale - Tory. faircuppa
  • Score: 0

6:49am Sat 17 Nov 12

Stand up for England says...

DocD wrote:
Low turn out is also about disllusionment with policing in TVP area particularly amongst poor, working class & minority communities. Over policing,
surveillance,harassm

ent/brutality is a reality - 3 deaths of Black people in 4.5 years is testimony to this.

TVP motto is: SIT PAX IN VALLE TAMESIS. "Let there be peace in the Thames Valley".Now Stansfield is elected What will he do do to stop harassment/brutality

, mass surveillance/crimina

lisation of poor & BME people?

http://justice4paps.

wordpress.com/
'harassment/brutalit
y, mass surveillance, criminalisation of poor & BME people' .... who's been feeding you that **** ????
[quote][p][bold]DocD[/bold] wrote: Low turn out is also about disllusionment with policing in TVP area particularly amongst poor, working class & minority communities. Over policing, surveillance,harassm ent/brutality is a reality - 3 deaths of Black people in 4.5 years is testimony to this. TVP motto is: SIT PAX IN VALLE TAMESIS. "Let there be peace in the Thames Valley".Now Stansfield is elected What will he do do to stop harassment/brutality , mass surveillance/crimina lisation of poor & BME people? http://justice4paps. wordpress.com/[/p][/quote]'harassment/brutalit y, mass surveillance, criminalisation of poor & BME people' .... who's been feeding you that **** ???? Stand up for England
  • Score: 0

8:18am Sat 17 Nov 12

Mr Totterdge Hill says...

I wonder how many that whinge here actually voted?
I wonder how many that whinge here actually voted? Mr Totterdge Hill
  • Score: 0

9:05am Sat 17 Nov 12

sparky49 says...

daemonite wrote:
I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote.
Another Tory u turn, Dodgy Dave said two weeks ago every household would receive a leaflet. We did not and they saved 25 million pounds and got their puppets in. The electorate are not fooled, hence a turn out of 12.9. Bring on 2015 even if just to dump the most arrogant government this country has ever seen. Wil labour be any different? I suspect not. Maybe it is time for UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]daemonite[/bold] wrote: I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote.[/p][/quote]Another Tory u turn, Dodgy Dave said two weeks ago every household would receive a leaflet. We did not and they saved 25 million pounds and got their puppets in. The electorate are not fooled, hence a turn out of 12.9. Bring on 2015 even if just to dump the most arrogant government this country has ever seen. Wil labour be any different? I suspect not. Maybe it is time for UKIP. sparky49
  • Score: 0

9:29am Sat 17 Nov 12

MrsKissenger says...

I was going to vote for the tory until I read that he had been on the police authority previously and felt that there was nothing that needed changing....
Then I heard his polished and plummy posh voice on the radio, put me right off him.
I was going to vote for the tory until I read that he had been on the police authority previously and felt that there was nothing that needed changing.... Then I heard his polished and plummy posh voice on the radio, put me right off him. MrsKissenger
  • Score: 0

10:50am Sat 17 Nov 12

Monte Cristo says...

daemonite wrote:
I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote.
Completely agree. Shambolic. Democracy only works if you have the facts to make an informed choice.
[quote][p][bold]daemonite[/bold] wrote: I was expecting some liturature to come through the door telling us all about it. Who was standing, and why we should vote for them, but we heard nothing at all. Only the day that it was on. If they can't be bothered to canvas for our vote, then I'm sorry, I can't be bothered to go to the polling station to vote.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. Shambolic. Democracy only works if you have the facts to make an informed choice. Monte Cristo
  • Score: 0

11:10am Sat 17 Nov 12

williamjames says...

Helen 123 wrote:
Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?
It appears that it will be David Carol who was a colleague on the Police Authority. It is rumoured that he will get £60,000 per annum for a couple of days work per week.
He is also one of the deputy leaders in WDC and a Bucks County Councillor.
Three publicly funded jobs! Perhaps a review of his expenses would be in order to ensure that the snout is not...
[quote][p][bold]Helen 123[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?[/p][/quote]It appears that it will be David Carol who was a colleague on the Police Authority. It is rumoured that he will get £60,000 per annum for a couple of days work per week. He is also one of the deputy leaders in WDC and a Bucks County Councillor. Three publicly funded jobs! Perhaps a review of his expenses would be in order to ensure that the snout is not... williamjames
  • Score: 0

11:21am Sat 17 Nov 12

Lividov says...

Yay! big shake up then on how we're policed. About time too. Can't wait to see the radical changes ... and no i didn't vote - really tell me what is the point in this? Do you really think anything will change? I'll give it 2 years before the first report of snout troughing or nepotism arises.
Yay! big shake up then on how we're policed. About time too. Can't wait to see the radical changes ... and no i didn't vote - really tell me what is the point in this? Do you really think anything will change? I'll give it 2 years before the first report of snout troughing or nepotism arises. Lividov
  • Score: 0

11:22am Sat 17 Nov 12

Marmite XO says...

MrsKissenger wrote:
I was going to vote for the tory until I read that he had been on the police authority previously and felt that there was nothing that needed changing....
Then I heard his polished and plummy posh voice on the radio, put me right off him.
Yes, you wouldn't want to vote for someone who has been brought up well and gone to decent schools would you. I'd much rather vote for an illiterate fool who sounds like a builder.
[quote][p][bold]MrsKissenger[/bold] wrote: I was going to vote for the tory until I read that he had been on the police authority previously and felt that there was nothing that needed changing.... Then I heard his polished and plummy posh voice on the radio, put me right off him.[/p][/quote]Yes, you wouldn't want to vote for someone who has been brought up well and gone to decent schools would you. I'd much rather vote for an illiterate fool who sounds like a builder. Marmite XO
  • Score: 0

11:28am Sat 17 Nov 12

Marmite XO says...

Tim Starkey was the only candidate with nearly enough experience to do the job. Still not enough for my liking though. So why waste time voting when none of them are competent.

I genuinely can't believe that Patience Tayo Awe and the Ukip candidate got nearly 35,000 votes between them. On their information pages they actually admitted knowing nothing about this job. And still thousands of people voted for them. Frightening.
Tim Starkey was the only candidate with nearly enough experience to do the job. Still not enough for my liking though. So why waste time voting when none of them are competent. I genuinely can't believe that Patience Tayo Awe and the Ukip candidate got nearly 35,000 votes between them. On their information pages they actually admitted knowing nothing about this job. And still thousands of people voted for them. Frightening. Marmite XO
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Sat 17 Nov 12

gpn01 says...

Darren Hayday wrote:
This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote!

Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..)

But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time"

This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead.
We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election.
Party candidates should have been barred from standing.
I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems.
They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters!
of the 1.7 million voters only 145,000 voted against the Conservative candidate. No excuse for voter apathy and no point complaining about which candidate was elected. Apathy or not, 1.55 million could have voted for someone else but chose not to.
[quote][p][bold]Darren Hayday[/bold] wrote: This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote! Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..) But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time" This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead. We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election. Party candidates should have been barred from standing. I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems. They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters![/p][/quote]of the 1.7 million voters only 145,000 voted against the Conservative candidate. No excuse for voter apathy and no point complaining about which candidate was elected. Apathy or not, 1.55 million could have voted for someone else but chose not to. gpn01
  • Score: 0

5:37pm Sat 17 Nov 12

Helen 123 says...

williamjames wrote:
Helen 123 wrote:
Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?
It appears that it will be David Carol who was a colleague on the Police Authority. It is rumoured that he will get £60,000 per annum for a couple of days work per week.
He is also one of the deputy leaders in WDC and a Bucks County Councillor.
Three publicly funded jobs! Perhaps a review of his expenses would be in order to ensure that the snout is not...
Has this been confirmed? Will he be resigning from his other posts? I see conflicts of interests being an issue for him if he doesn't.
[quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen 123[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?[/p][/quote]It appears that it will be David Carol who was a colleague on the Police Authority. It is rumoured that he will get £60,000 per annum for a couple of days work per week. He is also one of the deputy leaders in WDC and a Bucks County Councillor. Three publicly funded jobs! Perhaps a review of his expenses would be in order to ensure that the snout is not...[/p][/quote]Has this been confirmed? Will he be resigning from his other posts? I see conflicts of interests being an issue for him if he doesn't. Helen 123
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Sat 17 Nov 12

stevet123 says...

gpn01 wrote:
Darren Hayday wrote:
This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote!

Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..)

But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time"

This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead.
We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election.
Party candidates should have been barred from standing.
I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems.
They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters!
of the 1.7 million voters only 145,000 voted against the Conservative candidate. No excuse for voter apathy and no point complaining about which candidate was elected. Apathy or not, 1.55 million could have voted for someone else but chose not to.
public did not want this, typical David Cameron and his merry men gate did,

the tory guy gave a boring speach.

now he has to axe peoples jobs to pay for his what a load of old twaddle, and i am happy that so many abstained from voting, just shows you what a slimey selfish **** Cameron is.
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Darren Hayday[/bold] wrote: This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote! Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..) But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time" This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead. We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election. Party candidates should have been barred from standing. I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems. They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters![/p][/quote]of the 1.7 million voters only 145,000 voted against the Conservative candidate. No excuse for voter apathy and no point complaining about which candidate was elected. Apathy or not, 1.55 million could have voted for someone else but chose not to.[/p][/quote]public did not want this, typical David Cameron and his merry men gate did, the tory guy gave a boring speach. now he has to axe peoples jobs to pay for his what a load of old twaddle, and i am happy that so many abstained from voting, just shows you what a slimey selfish **** Cameron is. stevet123
  • Score: 0

2:47am Sun 18 Nov 12

J B Blackett says...

Helen 123 wrote:
williamjames wrote:
Helen 123 wrote:
Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?
It appears that it will be David Carol who was a colleague on the Police Authority. It is rumoured that he will get £60,000 per annum for a couple of days work per week.
He is also one of the deputy leaders in WDC and a Bucks County Councillor.
Three publicly funded jobs! Perhaps a review of his expenses would be in order to ensure that the snout is not...
Has this been confirmed? Will he be resigning from his other posts? I see conflicts of interests being an issue for him if he doesn't.
This chap is not interested in conflicts of interest. In fact he is interested in conflicts and revels in it. That activity baffles the public into thinking this sort of person is 'fully-occupied' , very busy and worthy of their grotesque salaries
.
And with 3 ( possibly 5 ) part-time publicly funded jobs (just like Lord Patten of the BBC) - he enjoys a good pointless debate.
.
Mostly with himself , while he tirelessly fills in his expenses forms and debates with himself what he can get past the various committees by nodding his claims through the processes.
.
God smiles on the (self-) righteous.
[quote][p][bold]Helen 123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Helen 123[/bold] wrote: Does anyone know if there will be a deputy and if so who will that be and what will they be paid?[/p][/quote]It appears that it will be David Carol who was a colleague on the Police Authority. It is rumoured that he will get £60,000 per annum for a couple of days work per week. He is also one of the deputy leaders in WDC and a Bucks County Councillor. Three publicly funded jobs! Perhaps a review of his expenses would be in order to ensure that the snout is not...[/p][/quote]Has this been confirmed? Will he be resigning from his other posts? I see conflicts of interests being an issue for him if he doesn't.[/p][/quote]This chap is not interested in conflicts of interest. In fact he is interested in conflicts and revels in it. That activity baffles the public into thinking this sort of person is 'fully-occupied' , very busy and worthy of their grotesque salaries . And with 3 ( possibly 5 ) part-time publicly funded jobs (just like Lord Patten of the BBC) - he enjoys a good pointless debate. . Mostly with himself , while he tirelessly fills in his expenses forms and debates with himself what he can get past the various committees by nodding his claims through the processes. . God smiles on the (self-) righteous. J B Blackett
  • Score: 0

10:09am Sun 18 Nov 12

esilvester says...

I find it quite disconcerting to hear a political tag to the police commissioner's title. I do not see the relevance of his / her political allegiance other than demonstrating who is behind the funding his platform. I am no more interested in what car he drives or his preference between coke or pepsi.

I did not vote. Don't assume it was because I did not bother. It was because I think the whole idea is fundamentally stupid.

I regret it, as I should have spoilt my paper.
I find it quite disconcerting to hear a political tag to the police commissioner's title. I do not see the relevance of his / her political allegiance other than demonstrating who is behind the funding his platform. I am no more interested in what car he drives or his preference between coke or pepsi. I did not vote. Don't assume it was because I did not bother. It was because I think the whole idea is fundamentally stupid. I regret it, as I should have spoilt my paper. esilvester
  • Score: 0

7:40am Mon 19 Nov 12

williamjames says...

Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple.
If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain.

I voted, therefore I can complain.

For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself! williamjames
  • Score: 0

8:23am Mon 19 Nov 12

gpn01 says...

williamjames wrote:
Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple.
If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain.

I voted, therefore I can complain.

For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.
[quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself![/p][/quote]completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote. gpn01
  • Score: 0

8:25am Mon 19 Nov 12

Ivor'sbestfriend says...

As all the candidates were a clueless shambles, and the whole idea was a bad one, what was the point in voting?
As all the candidates were a clueless shambles, and the whole idea was a bad one, what was the point in voting? Ivor'sbestfriend
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Darren Hayday says...

Wycombe Elector wrote:
Darren Hayday wrote:
This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote!

Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..)

But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time"

This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead.
We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election.
Party candidates should have been barred from standing.
I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems.
They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters!
'... none of the Thames Valley candidates didn't have any prior experience in the police force...'

Great use of English!
"con·de·scend·ing
" this is a word that I found in a book called a "dictionary".

I do hope that you read it as its a GREAT READ...
[quote][p][bold]Wycombe Elector[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Darren Hayday[/bold] wrote: This is truly a sad day for British democracy were about 86% in our region (and give or take the same results in the rest of the UK) decided to not to bother to vote! Also shock horror - a Conservative won (like we didn’t see that coming..) But of course only the good ol' Party faithful would come out with lines like "It’s the first election and more people will vote in 4 years time" This whole silly and waste of time exercise was from the think tank “Policy Exchange” and David Cameron rubber stamped this election to go ahead. We didn’t have enough information on each candidate; none of the Thames Valley candidates didn’t have any prior experience in the police force and this should not have been political – it makes a mockery out of the whole election. Party candidates should have been barred from standing. I only hope that the Government recognise that they have made a mistake and do something about it rather than lecture to us and give a positive spin – this is what we were fed in the Blair days and now seeing with the Tories and the LibDems. They should hang their heads in shame to the way that they don’t listen to us the British public, taxpayers and voters![/p][/quote]'... none of the Thames Valley candidates didn't have any prior experience in the police force...' Great use of English![/p][/quote]"con·de·scend·ing " this is a word that I found in a book called a "dictionary". I do hope that you read it as its a GREAT READ... Darren Hayday
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Mon 19 Nov 12

Darren Hayday says...

faircuppa wrote:
Quite right yogi, it's silly money. A return to soapboxes would be cheap. It is absurd that people talk about non-political police. They carry out the laws passed by a political parliament. The former police authority was loaded with councillors. Then there's the naive idea that Independents are non-political! The risk is you don't know what their true politics are.
Competition -name any current independent's former political party or which way they vote.........
e.g. Darren Haydale - Tory.
My surname is spelt 'Hayday' and I can't honestly remember the last time that I voted Tory. However I was a former member of the Conservative party till I tore up and returned my membership card (I think that was last Feb time). Do I win your competition?
[quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: Quite right yogi, it's silly money. A return to soapboxes would be cheap. It is absurd that people talk about non-political police. They carry out the laws passed by a political parliament. The former police authority was loaded with councillors. Then there's the naive idea that Independents are non-political! The risk is you don't know what their true politics are. Competition -name any current independent's former political party or which way they vote......... e.g. Darren Haydale - Tory.[/p][/quote]My surname is spelt 'Hayday' and I can't honestly remember the last time that I voted Tory. However I was a former member of the Conservative party till I tore up and returned my membership card (I think that was last Feb time). Do I win your competition? Darren Hayday
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Mon 19 Nov 12

stevet123 says...

gpn01 wrote:
williamjames wrote:
Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple.
If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain.

I voted, therefore I can complain.

For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.
Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself![/p][/quote]completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.[/p][/quote]Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen stevet123
  • Score: 0

4:10pm Mon 19 Nov 12

gpn01 says...

stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
williamjames wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.
Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen
No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is:

Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know.

Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not.

Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself![/p][/quote]completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.[/p][/quote]Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen[/p][/quote]No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is: Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know. Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not. Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned. gpn01
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Mon 19 Nov 12

DocD says...

Stand up for England wrote:
DocD wrote:
Low turn out is also about disllusionment with policing in TVP area particularly amongst poor, working class & minority communities. Over policing,
surveillance,harassm


ent/brutality is a reality - 3 deaths of Black people in 4.5 years is testimony to this.

TVP motto is: SIT PAX IN VALLE TAMESIS. "Let there be peace in the Thames Valley".Now Stansfield is elected What will he do do to stop harassment/brutality


, mass surveillance/crimina


lisation of poor & BME people?

http://justice4paps.


wordpress.com/
'harassment/brutalit

y, mass surveillance, criminalisation of poor & BME people' .... who's been feeding you that **** ????
Yea sorry you must live in a different town from me. I think you better sit down!
[quote][p][bold]Stand up for England[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DocD[/bold] wrote: Low turn out is also about disllusionment with policing in TVP area particularly amongst poor, working class & minority communities. Over policing, surveillance,harassm ent/brutality is a reality - 3 deaths of Black people in 4.5 years is testimony to this. TVP motto is: SIT PAX IN VALLE TAMESIS. "Let there be peace in the Thames Valley".Now Stansfield is elected What will he do do to stop harassment/brutality , mass surveillance/crimina lisation of poor & BME people? http://justice4paps. wordpress.com/[/p][/quote]'harassment/brutalit y, mass surveillance, criminalisation of poor & BME people' .... who's been feeding you that **** ????[/p][/quote]Yea sorry you must live in a different town from me. I think you better sit down! DocD
  • Score: 0

11:15pm Mon 19 Nov 12

stevet123 says...

gpn01 wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
williamjames wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.
Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen
No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is:

Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know.

Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not.

Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.
you fool gpn01

this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country.


But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself![/p][/quote]completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.[/p][/quote]Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen[/p][/quote]No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is: Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know. Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not. Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.[/p][/quote]you fool gpn01 this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country. But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways stevet123
  • Score: 0

11:18pm Tue 20 Nov 12

gpn01 says...

stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
williamjames wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.
Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen
No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is:

Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know.

Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not.

Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.
you fool gpn01

this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country.


But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways
Well, it's not me ranting about people not voting. That was someone else on the thread. I don't care whether other people vote or not. That's their choice. I don't claim (unlike you) to know why people didn't vote, and claiming that you "know" what the public wants seems naive at best.

You appear to have turned the non-voting into a rant about what clearly bothers you by introducing unrelated things that you feel somehow are related but are simply you trying to score what I would describe as political points. Of all the things that the election of a PCC was about, it certainly wasn't about determining the UK's foreign aid policy! It also wasn't about "non english (sic) companies" avoiding tax in this country. Do you have something against Welsh and Scottish companies then? or evidence that they're not paying taxes? Is your gripe solely about non-English businesses not paying UK tax but you don't have a problem with English companies not paying tax? Or is it that you're just being suckered in to the political rhetoric that's being spouted about Starbuck's and Amazon not paying as much in UK taxation as they perhaps could? Do you actually understand the consequences if these businesses did pay more in UK taxes? Here's a clue: taxation will be passed on to the consumer (via higher prices) and the employee (via lower wages). Is that what you want?

Finally your observation about going down the American route shows that you don't understand the purpose of the PCC. Their job is to make the Chief Constable accountable to the public. Currently that's not the case. If that's going down the path of an American way, why is that a bad thing? I agree that there are many things that we shouldn't import from the USA but they do have some good ideas that I see no reason to discount simply because they're "american".
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself![/p][/quote]completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.[/p][/quote]Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen[/p][/quote]No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is: Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know. Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not. Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.[/p][/quote]you fool gpn01 this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country. But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways[/p][/quote]Well, it's not me ranting about people not voting. That was someone else on the thread. I don't care whether other people vote or not. That's their choice. I don't claim (unlike you) to know why people didn't vote, and claiming that you "know" what the public wants seems naive at best. You appear to have turned the non-voting into a rant about what clearly bothers you by introducing unrelated things that you feel somehow are related but are simply you trying to score what I would describe as political points. Of all the things that the election of a PCC was about, it certainly wasn't about determining the UK's foreign aid policy! It also wasn't about "non english (sic) companies" avoiding tax in this country. Do you have something against Welsh and Scottish companies then? or evidence that they're not paying taxes? Is your gripe solely about non-English businesses not paying UK tax but you don't have a problem with English companies not paying tax? Or is it that you're just being suckered in to the political rhetoric that's being spouted about Starbuck's and Amazon not paying as much in UK taxation as they perhaps could? Do you actually understand the consequences if these businesses did pay more in UK taxes? Here's a clue: taxation will be passed on to the consumer (via higher prices) and the employee (via lower wages). Is that what you want? Finally your observation about going down the American route shows that you don't understand the purpose of the PCC. Their job is to make the Chief Constable accountable to the public. Currently that's not the case. If that's going down the path of an American way, why is that a bad thing? I agree that there are many things that we shouldn't import from the USA but they do have some good ideas that I see no reason to discount simply because they're "american". gpn01
  • Score: 0

11:56pm Tue 20 Nov 12

stevet123 says...

gpn01 wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
williamjames wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.
Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen
No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is:

Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know.

Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not.

Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.
you fool gpn01

this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country.


But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways
Well, it's not me ranting about people not voting. That was someone else on the thread. I don't care whether other people vote or not. That's their choice. I don't claim (unlike you) to know why people didn't vote, and claiming that you "know" what the public wants seems naive at best.

You appear to have turned the non-voting into a rant about what clearly bothers you by introducing unrelated things that you feel somehow are related but are simply you trying to score what I would describe as political points. Of all the things that the election of a PCC was about, it certainly wasn't about determining the UK's foreign aid policy! It also wasn't about "non english (sic) companies" avoiding tax in this country. Do you have something against Welsh and Scottish companies then? or evidence that they're not paying taxes? Is your gripe solely about non-English businesses not paying UK tax but you don't have a problem with English companies not paying tax? Or is it that you're just being suckered in to the political rhetoric that's being spouted about Starbuck's and Amazon not paying as much in UK taxation as they perhaps could? Do you actually understand the consequences if these businesses did pay more in UK taxes? Here's a clue: taxation will be passed on to the consumer (via higher prices) and the employee (via lower wages). Is that what you want?

Finally your observation about going down the American route shows that you don't understand the purpose of the PCC. Their job is to make the Chief Constable accountable to the public. Currently that's not the case. If that's going down the path of an American way, why is that a bad thing? I agree that there are many things that we shouldn't import from the USA but they do have some good ideas that I see no reason to discount simply because they're "american".
do me a favour emigrate
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself![/p][/quote]completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.[/p][/quote]Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen[/p][/quote]No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is: Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know. Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not. Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.[/p][/quote]you fool gpn01 this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country. But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways[/p][/quote]Well, it's not me ranting about people not voting. That was someone else on the thread. I don't care whether other people vote or not. That's their choice. I don't claim (unlike you) to know why people didn't vote, and claiming that you "know" what the public wants seems naive at best. You appear to have turned the non-voting into a rant about what clearly bothers you by introducing unrelated things that you feel somehow are related but are simply you trying to score what I would describe as political points. Of all the things that the election of a PCC was about, it certainly wasn't about determining the UK's foreign aid policy! It also wasn't about "non english (sic) companies" avoiding tax in this country. Do you have something against Welsh and Scottish companies then? or evidence that they're not paying taxes? Is your gripe solely about non-English businesses not paying UK tax but you don't have a problem with English companies not paying tax? Or is it that you're just being suckered in to the political rhetoric that's being spouted about Starbuck's and Amazon not paying as much in UK taxation as they perhaps could? Do you actually understand the consequences if these businesses did pay more in UK taxes? Here's a clue: taxation will be passed on to the consumer (via higher prices) and the employee (via lower wages). Is that what you want? Finally your observation about going down the American route shows that you don't understand the purpose of the PCC. Their job is to make the Chief Constable accountable to the public. Currently that's not the case. If that's going down the path of an American way, why is that a bad thing? I agree that there are many things that we shouldn't import from the USA but they do have some good ideas that I see no reason to discount simply because they're "american".[/p][/quote]do me a favour emigrate stevet123
  • Score: 0

12:00am Wed 21 Nov 12

gpn01 says...

stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
stevet123 wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
williamjames wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself!
completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.
Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen
No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is:

Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know.

Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not.

Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.
you fool gpn01

this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country.


But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways
Well, it's not me ranting about people not voting. That was someone else on the thread. I don't care whether other people vote or not. That's their choice. I don't claim (unlike you) to know why people didn't vote, and claiming that you "know" what the public wants seems naive at best.

You appear to have turned the non-voting into a rant about what clearly bothers you by introducing unrelated things that you feel somehow are related but are simply you trying to score what I would describe as political points. Of all the things that the election of a PCC was about, it certainly wasn't about determining the UK's foreign aid policy! It also wasn't about "non english (sic) companies" avoiding tax in this country. Do you have something against Welsh and Scottish companies then? or evidence that they're not paying taxes? Is your gripe solely about non-English businesses not paying UK tax but you don't have a problem with English companies not paying tax? Or is it that you're just being suckered in to the political rhetoric that's being spouted about Starbuck's and Amazon not paying as much in UK taxation as they perhaps could? Do you actually understand the consequences if these businesses did pay more in UK taxes? Here's a clue: taxation will be passed on to the consumer (via higher prices) and the employee (via lower wages). Is that what you want?

Finally your observation about going down the American route shows that you don't understand the purpose of the PCC. Their job is to make the Chief Constable accountable to the public. Currently that's not the case. If that's going down the path of an American way, why is that a bad thing? I agree that there are many things that we shouldn't import from the USA but they do have some good ideas that I see no reason to discount simply because they're "american".
do me a favour emigrate
How do you know that I haven't?
[quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]stevet123[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]williamjames[/bold] wrote: Interesting set of comments. However, how many of those commenting bothered to go and vote? The point is very simple. If you went and cast your vote, spoiled or not, you have earned the right to comment and complain. If you could not be bothered to 'get off your arse' and cast your vote you have not got the right to complain. I voted, therefore I can complain. For Helen123 the source of the deputy's name is Anthony Stansfeld himself![/p][/quote]completely agree. I was one of the few who made the effort to read what the candidates wrote. I made the time to vote.[/p][/quote]Believe me the people who did not vote, did not vote as its a complete watse of money, also the people who did not vote, sends a clear message to Cameron and his merry men this is not wanted, they chop services then put in a waste of space to run the police budgets, when the top policeman in the Thames valley police was already doing what this guy is doing, he must feel he is side lineded, and feel degraded by cameron and his merry men, best thing /Cameron can do is resign and move to Syria in a nice big house and retire from public life Amen[/p][/quote]No I do not believe you. The reason for not believing you is: Firstly, you do not know the reasoning of over 1.5 Million people. Unless they voted for you to represent them. Which they didn't. All you are expressing is your personal opinion and possibly of those that you know. Secondly, you claim that they did not vote because it was a waste of money. The money was spent whether they voted or not. Finally (in your opinion) they did not vote becaue they wanted to send a message. Well you're right. They did send a clear message. That message was that they didn't vote. If they actually wanted to send a message to say that they were against the Conservatives then 1.5 Million people could have voted for another candidate. But they didn't. It's pretty clear to me that they had an opportunity to object by voting in another candidate. The fatc that they didn't suggests that they weren't sufficiently concerned.[/p][/quote]you fool gpn01 this was put on people, and we do not need it, so why should the public vote, trouble with Cameron and his meery men he does not listen to the public, only agrees with his supporters, he should take heed on the very very poor turn out that the public do not want this, throwing cut backs after cut backs at us and not even cutting aid to other countries, not even tackling the non english companies that avoid tax in this country. But while you are ranting about people not voting now think do we need a commissioner when the chief in charge of thames valley police is already doing the job, and also why do we have to be like the Americans, this is England not America and we are going down the paths of the American ways[/p][/quote]Well, it's not me ranting about people not voting. That was someone else on the thread. I don't care whether other people vote or not. That's their choice. I don't claim (unlike you) to know why people didn't vote, and claiming that you "know" what the public wants seems naive at best. You appear to have turned the non-voting into a rant about what clearly bothers you by introducing unrelated things that you feel somehow are related but are simply you trying to score what I would describe as political points. Of all the things that the election of a PCC was about, it certainly wasn't about determining the UK's foreign aid policy! It also wasn't about "non english (sic) companies" avoiding tax in this country. Do you have something against Welsh and Scottish companies then? or evidence that they're not paying taxes? Is your gripe solely about non-English businesses not paying UK tax but you don't have a problem with English companies not paying tax? Or is it that you're just being suckered in to the political rhetoric that's being spouted about Starbuck's and Amazon not paying as much in UK taxation as they perhaps could? Do you actually understand the consequences if these businesses did pay more in UK taxes? Here's a clue: taxation will be passed on to the consumer (via higher prices) and the employee (via lower wages). Is that what you want? Finally your observation about going down the American route shows that you don't understand the purpose of the PCC. Their job is to make the Chief Constable accountable to the public. Currently that's not the case. If that's going down the path of an American way, why is that a bad thing? I agree that there are many things that we shouldn't import from the USA but they do have some good ideas that I see no reason to discount simply because they're "american".[/p][/quote]do me a favour emigrate[/p][/quote]How do you know that I haven't? gpn01
  • Score: 0

12:10am Wed 21 Nov 12

Wycombe Elector says...

Darren Hayday wrote:
faircuppa wrote: Quite right yogi, it's silly money. A return to soapboxes would be cheap. It is absurd that people talk about non-political police. They carry out the laws passed by a political parliament. The former police authority was loaded with councillors. Then there's the naive idea that Independents are non-political! The risk is you don't know what their true politics are. Competition -name any current independent's former political party or which way they vote......... e.g. Darren Haydale - Tory.
My surname is spelt 'Hayday' and I can't honestly remember the last time that I voted Tory. However I was a former member of the Conservative party till I tore up and returned my membership card (I think that was last Feb time). Do I win your competition?
Presumably in the 2007 WDC elections when you stood as a Conservative; then in every local, national and european election for the next 4 years as a Conservative councillor, until 2011?
[quote][p][bold]Darren Hayday[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]faircuppa[/bold] wrote: Quite right yogi, it's silly money. A return to soapboxes would be cheap. It is absurd that people talk about non-political police. They carry out the laws passed by a political parliament. The former police authority was loaded with councillors. Then there's the naive idea that Independents are non-political! The risk is you don't know what their true politics are. Competition -name any current independent's former political party or which way they vote......... e.g. Darren Haydale - Tory.[/p][/quote]My surname is spelt 'Hayday' and I can't honestly remember the last time that I voted Tory. However I was a former member of the Conservative party till I tore up and returned my membership card (I think that was last Feb time). Do I win your competition?[/p][/quote]Presumably in the 2007 WDC elections when you stood as a Conservative; then in every local, national and european election for the next 4 years as a Conservative councillor, until 2011? Wycombe Elector
  • Score: 0

10:53am Wed 21 Nov 12

philbo says...

@gpn01
Your oft-repeated point about the million-and-a-half people who could have voted for another candidate is either idiocy from someone who doesn't understand, or disingenuousness: counting the people who didn't vote against as some kind of support is spurious and if you had any intellectual decency at all, you'd apologize for wasting our time having reading it.

That 1.5m people didn't have anyone they wanted to vote for, either.

The only election communication I received for this poll was something from the Conservatives extolling the virtues of their candidate: given my strongly-held view that this post should not be party-political, that made me want to vote against him even more, yet there was nobody to vote for as all I knew of the other candidates is the few paragraphs on the web that were totally useless when it comes to making a decision.

The only hustings I heard about took place in Aylesbury during working hours - now *that* is a denial of democracy if ever there was one.

The only available protest vote was a spoiled ballot, so that's what I did.
@gpn01 Your oft-repeated point about the million-and-a-half people who could have voted for another candidate is either idiocy from someone who doesn't understand, or disingenuousness: counting the people who didn't vote against as some kind of support is spurious and if you had any intellectual decency at all, you'd apologize for wasting our time having reading it. That 1.5m people didn't have anyone they wanted to vote for, either. The only election communication I received for this poll was something from the Conservatives extolling the virtues of their candidate: given my strongly-held view that this post should not be party-political, that made me want to vote against him even more, yet there was nobody to vote for as all I knew of the other candidates is the few paragraphs on the web that were totally useless when it comes to making a decision. The only hustings I heard about took place in Aylesbury during working hours - now *that* is a denial of democracy if ever there was one. The only available protest vote was a spoiled ballot, so that's what I did. philbo
  • Score: 0

1:00pm Wed 21 Nov 12

gpn01 says...

philbo wrote:
@gpn01 Your oft-repeated point about the million-and-a-half people who could have voted for another candidate is either idiocy from someone who doesn't understand, or disingenuousness: counting the people who didn't vote against as some kind of support is spurious and if you had any intellectual decency at all, you'd apologize for wasting our time having reading it. That 1.5m people didn't have anyone they wanted to vote for, either. The only election communication I received for this poll was something from the Conservatives extolling the virtues of their candidate: given my strongly-held view that this post should not be party-political, that made me want to vote against him even more, yet there was nobody to vote for as all I knew of the other candidates is the few paragraphs on the web that were totally useless when it comes to making a decision. The only hustings I heard about took place in Aylesbury during working hours - now *that* is a denial of democracy if ever there was one. The only available protest vote was a spoiled ballot, so that's what I did.
I agree with some of your points - I agree that the position shouldn't be political. but it is. I agree that there was no active campaigning. I agree that there wasn't much information published about the candidates (although I'm not sure what any of them could have added beyond their election statements).

That you feel that there wasn't anyone to vote for is your opinion. I feel that there was and that's my opinion. Both opinions are valid. BUT I'm not suggesting that all because I have a particular opinion that it's also the same opinion shared by everyone else. Don't see what gives you the mandate to think otherwise regarding your opinion.

As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected.

If, in your opinion, my perspective makes me an idiot or someone who doesn't understand, then (again) that's your opinion.
[quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: @gpn01 Your oft-repeated point about the million-and-a-half people who could have voted for another candidate is either idiocy from someone who doesn't understand, or disingenuousness: counting the people who didn't vote against as some kind of support is spurious and if you had any intellectual decency at all, you'd apologize for wasting our time having reading it. That 1.5m people didn't have anyone they wanted to vote for, either. The only election communication I received for this poll was something from the Conservatives extolling the virtues of their candidate: given my strongly-held view that this post should not be party-political, that made me want to vote against him even more, yet there was nobody to vote for as all I knew of the other candidates is the few paragraphs on the web that were totally useless when it comes to making a decision. The only hustings I heard about took place in Aylesbury during working hours - now *that* is a denial of democracy if ever there was one. The only available protest vote was a spoiled ballot, so that's what I did.[/p][/quote]I agree with some of your points - I agree that the position shouldn't be political. but it is. I agree that there was no active campaigning. I agree that there wasn't much information published about the candidates (although I'm not sure what any of them could have added beyond their election statements). That you feel that there wasn't anyone to vote for is your opinion. I feel that there was and that's my opinion. Both opinions are valid. BUT I'm not suggesting that all because I have a particular opinion that it's also the same opinion shared by everyone else. Don't see what gives you the mandate to think otherwise regarding your opinion. As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected. If, in your opinion, my perspective makes me an idiot or someone who doesn't understand, then (again) that's your opinion. gpn01
  • Score: 0

12:03pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Peter Cyprus says...

esilvester wrote:
I find it quite disconcerting to hear a political tag to the police commissioner's title. I do not see the relevance of his / her political allegiance other than demonstrating who is behind the funding his platform. I am no more interested in what car he drives or his preference between coke or pepsi.

I did not vote. Don't assume it was because I did not bother. It was because I think the whole idea is fundamentally stupid.

I regret it, as I should have spoilt my paper.
Absolutely spot on. This post should not have been allowed to be taken over by party politics. As this guy has been elected on a party line it is only natural that he will follow and toe the party line. Another dogs breakfast!
[quote][p][bold]esilvester[/bold] wrote: I find it quite disconcerting to hear a political tag to the police commissioner's title. I do not see the relevance of his / her political allegiance other than demonstrating who is behind the funding his platform. I am no more interested in what car he drives or his preference between coke or pepsi. I did not vote. Don't assume it was because I did not bother. It was because I think the whole idea is fundamentally stupid. I regret it, as I should have spoilt my paper.[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on. This post should not have been allowed to be taken over by party politics. As this guy has been elected on a party line it is only natural that he will follow and toe the party line. Another dogs breakfast! Peter Cyprus
  • Score: 0

2:26pm Thu 22 Nov 12

ImpeturbableLawrence says...

Astonishing a Conservative!

I bet HE will bring a critical eye to the police and kick **** whenever necessary.
Astonishing a Conservative! I bet HE will bring a critical eye to the police and kick **** whenever necessary. ImpeturbableLawrence
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Thu 22 Nov 12

philbo says...

gpn01 wrote:
As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected.

That's not quite what you were saying above - there's a difference between not voting against implying support and not voting meaning they can't subsequently moan.

I agree completely with that part of it: I've always taken the position that if you don't vote in an election, you have no right to complain about whoever got elected; but would never contemplate the conclusion that people who don't vote against a candidate implicitly support them.
gpn01 wrote: [quote]As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected. [/quote] That's not quite what you were saying above - there's a difference between not voting against implying support and not voting meaning they can't subsequently moan. I agree completely with that part of it: I've always taken the position that if you don't vote in an election, you have no right to complain about whoever got elected; but would never contemplate the conclusion that people who don't vote against a candidate implicitly support them. philbo
  • Score: 0

4:44pm Thu 22 Nov 12

Monte Cristo says...

philbo wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected.
That's not quite what you were saying above - there's a difference between not voting against implying support and not voting meaning they can't subsequently moan. I agree completely with that part of it: I've always taken the position that if you don't vote in an election, you have no right to complain about whoever got elected; but would never contemplate the conclusion that people who don't vote against a candidate implicitly support them.
In any election, if I choose not to vote because I don't see any candidate that is worthy of my support - I simply do not agree with enough of their mainfesto - that's not apathy, it's sticking to my values and not being prepared to support the best of a bad bunch.
And if that is my stance, why on earth shouldn't I criticise the candidate who won?
[quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: gpn01 wrote: [quote]As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected. [/quote] That's not quite what you were saying above - there's a difference between not voting against implying support and not voting meaning they can't subsequently moan. I agree completely with that part of it: I've always taken the position that if you don't vote in an election, you have no right to complain about whoever got elected; but would never contemplate the conclusion that people who don't vote against a candidate implicitly support them.[/p][/quote]In any election, if I choose not to vote because I don't see any candidate that is worthy of my support - I simply do not agree with enough of their mainfesto - that's not apathy, it's sticking to my values and not being prepared to support the best of a bad bunch. And if that is my stance, why on earth shouldn't I criticise the candidate who won? Monte Cristo
  • Score: 0

5:07pm Thu 22 Nov 12

stevet123 says...

philbo wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected.

That's not quite what you were saying above - there's a difference between not voting against implying support and not voting meaning they can't subsequently moan.

I agree completely with that part of it: I've always taken the position that if you don't vote in an election, you have no right to complain about whoever got elected; but would never contemplate the conclusion that people who don't vote against a candidate implicitly support them.
but we can moan about the t w a t who's idea it was, when its a complete waste of public money, typical tory cut backs then come up with another job, which really makes the police degraded,

And as i said before why should we vote for something that was force on us when we do not need it, lets have a public vallot on coming out of the EU as we cannot afford to be in the EU, also the EU need to make cut backs, get rid of the people who come up with cannot have bent bananas or cuccumbers etc, EU wasting money
[quote][p][bold]philbo[/bold] wrote: gpn01 wrote: [quote]As poorly conceived, promoted (or not!) and executed as the whole process was, everyone registered on the electoral roll had an opportunity to vote AND knew that they had the right to vote (as they will have received a polling card). Why they chose to not exercise that right was entirely up to them BUT they can't subsequently moan about who was elected. [/quote] That's not quite what you were saying above - there's a difference between not voting against implying support and not voting meaning they can't subsequently moan. I agree completely with that part of it: I've always taken the position that if you don't vote in an election, you have no right to complain about whoever got elected; but would never contemplate the conclusion that people who don't vote against a candidate implicitly support them.[/p][/quote]but we can moan about the t w a t who's idea it was, when its a complete waste of public money, typical tory cut backs then come up with another job, which really makes the police degraded, And as i said before why should we vote for something that was force on us when we do not need it, lets have a public vallot on coming out of the EU as we cannot afford to be in the EU, also the EU need to make cut backs, get rid of the people who come up with cannot have bent bananas or cuccumbers etc, EU wasting money stevet123
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Thu 22 Nov 12

philbo says...

Monte Cristo wrote:
In any election, if I choose not to vote because I don't see any candidate that is worthy of my support - I simply do not agree with enough of their mainfesto - that's not apathy, it's sticking to my values and not being prepared to support the best of a bad bunch.
And if that is my stance, why on earth shouldn't I criticise the candidate who won?

But think about it... Wouldn't it have been great if everybody who felt like you had gone to a polling station and spoiled their ballot? We'd have had more protest votes than elected any candidate, so claims to any kind of mandate whatsoever would be undermined.

Instead, you get people like gpn01 suggesting that *you* support our Conservative PCC because you didn't go out and vote against.

The problem is that not voting because you don't know or don't care is indistinguishable from not voting because you believe the system is fundamentally flawed and none of the candidates represent your views; (though, in fairness, it must be said that spoiled ballots are counted the same whether it's because somebody was too inept to know where to put the cross as those who wrote a pithy message for the returning officer).
Monte Cristo wrote: [quote]In any election, if I choose not to vote because I don't see any candidate that is worthy of my support - I simply do not agree with enough of their mainfesto - that's not apathy, it's sticking to my values and not being prepared to support the best of a bad bunch. And if that is my stance, why on earth shouldn't I criticise the candidate who won?[/quote] But think about it... Wouldn't it have been great if everybody who felt like you had gone to a polling station and spoiled their ballot? We'd have had more protest votes than elected any candidate, so claims to any kind of mandate whatsoever would be undermined. Instead, you get people like gpn01 suggesting that *you* support our Conservative PCC because you didn't go out and vote against. The problem is that not voting because you don't know or don't care is indistinguishable from not voting because you believe the system is fundamentally flawed and none of the candidates represent your views; (though, in fairness, it must be said that spoiled ballots are counted the same whether it's because somebody was too inept to know where to put the cross as those who wrote a pithy message for the returning officer). philbo
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree