Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source
SHavana Mahmoud It proved to be one of the few outstanding ministerial successes of this government. In a cabinet sorely lacking in effective communicators, she was forthright and seemed more sensitive to public opinion than many of her colleagues.
As Labor’s poll numbers fell, she became more combative and quickly rose through the ranks. She wants to be seen as “reformer in the interior ministry” and has begun to immigration systemthis is obviously a major issue of public concern.
Yet nowhere is her ambition more evident than in Britain’s proposed reforms. law and order Included in the white paper She unveiled it in the House of Commons on Monday.
Even before the book was published, Ms. Mahmoud was off to an encouraging start by abandoning the nearly impossible task of policing “noncriminal hate incidents” — an aspect of law enforcement that has caused confusion. invite ridiculeand undermining police authority when they have to deal with truly serious cases, such as inciting racial hatred through social media.
As the Home Secretary said policethey should indeed be “catch criminalsreduce crime and ensure People in our community feel safe“I want them to get out of the business of essentially regulating social media — that’s not what they need to do,” she declared. “Police the streets, if you will— No moderation of tweets.
If Ms. Mahmoud has his way, people will also truly embrace technology. She announced plans to ramp up the use of artificial intelligence and real-time facial recognition, and unveiled sweeping reforms aimed at fixing Britain’s “broken” policing system.
Abolition of democratic elections police and crime commissioner It’s also a smart move. They often lack the expertise, necessary authority and democratic legitimacy to do the job. Ms Mahmoud will need to exercise caution in future to ensure local policing accountability while avoiding the risk of undue pressure from local councillors. However, the white paper goes further and proposes the most substantive reforms in 60 years.
Ms. Mahmoud’s documents deserve to be taken seriously, but the public’s skepticism is justifiable. There is no proven case in history that police district reorganization significantly reduces crime.
Police chief complains about untidy police officers There are 43 different factions in England and WalesDuplicated functions, illogical responsibilities, and waste. There is, of course, a case for extending the functions of the national force beyond the existing National Crime Agency. When the challenge is national and international – because organized crime and terrorism exist on an unprecedented scale and sophistication – there is no alternative but to act. “British FBI”.
However, consolidating most of the county-level forces into larger regional forces seems to make little sense. Economies of scale in areas such as procurement and information technology can be achieved through closer collaboration between existing agencies. Areas such as highway patrol have benefited from more flexible arrangements.
Additionally, larger organizations tend to have more layers and more bureaucracy, and are just as prone to internal competition—if not more so. Big doesn’t mean efficient. Some 13 years ago Police Scotland consisted of eight regional forces and was not an inspiring success story.
Much of what Ms. Mahmood said. “everyday crime” is local, and the public will naturally become suspicious if their town or city loses more police departments. The damage done to “neighborhood policing” by the loss of local intelligence when the coalition government cut 20,000 jobs in the 2010s has yet to be repaired.
The optimal balance between localism, efficiency and accountability in policing is open to debate and Ms Mahmoud would be wise to subject her ideas to scrutiny and take the time to consider these sensitive changes, a process that will continue into the 2030s. What Ms Mahmoud did even more dangerously, and even unconstitutionally, was her proposal to give powers to the Home Secretary. Power to sack police chief and other senior officials on the grounds that, as she recently put it, they had “failed the public.”
No Home Secretary of any political party should have such powers except in cases of clear medical incapacity or actual criminality at the top. Suela BravermanHer unsurprising defection to reform Britain was in the news, a warning from recent history.
braverman is a pathetic home secretary She spent too much time publicly criticizing the way the Metropolitan Police Commissioner tried to keep the King’s peace during the war. Gaza protest march. she used the word recklessly “Double-tiered policing” Undermining the performance of official duties. She was a bully, but she could never unseat the Met Commissioner – that’s how it was supposed to be.
this Craig Gilford’s recent caseThe now retired chief constable of West Midlands Police has certainly highlighted what happens when leaders of a police force have clearly “failed the public”. After it was discovered he had exaggerated evidence to justify his force’s decision Maccabi Tel Aviv Fans saw him having to leave during the Europa League game against Aston Villa.
But such decisions require due care and legal procedures, balancing state and local responsibilities, and recourse to legal appeals. Responsibility for sacking senior officials should be diffused – such decisions should not depend on a word from a politician. Even for Ms. Mahmoud, the reform went too far.