As it stands at the moment, 15 people make the big decisions on Policing in your area... Are the new reforms including a PCC really more democratic?
Well, my simple answer is: yes.
My much more developed and insightful answer is:
There is a large debate as to whether or not the new Policing structure will be democratic or not, due to the fact that the amount of power held by these 15 individuals will, as of tomorrow, be in the hands of one. The difference? This one person will be elected by the public tomorrow, whereas the 15 who are in charge today were not.
So, if tomorrow's system is supposedly less democratic, why are we changing the way things are run? In the current economic climate, cuts are being made to every sector, including the police force. This election ensures that with the cuts that are made to the police force, the PCC will have the ability to represent your views and possibly prevent cuts from being made to crucial areas in your county.
Here in Kent, we have five PCC candidates, and my, oh my, did I take great pleasure in disproving the policies of two out of five (the truth is I haven't had time to look at the other three in enough detail). My advice to you, Mr/Ms Voter, is that you under no circumstances should vote by your political party.
Politics and law enforcement should be no more interlinked than they already are. Politicians make the law, the police enforce it. It perplexes me, and a great many other people I know, as to why political parties now have an influence on which crimes are focused on in their areas. Surely, this will lead to even more corruption! I can imagine it now! Conservative candidates will crack down on working class crime and crimes affecting businesses, but will totally ignore corporate and 'white-collar' (middle class) crime. Labour candidates will do the opposite and concentrate on those people we hear of so often these days committing tax evasion and fraud on massive scales etc.
So, once again, please do NOT vote by your political party. Take 5 minutes out of your evening, or tomorrow morning to have a look at the candidates and see which best suits you.
PCC candidates can be found here according to which area of the UK you live in - http://www.choosemypcc.org.uk/
I have one final request... and that is whatever you do, whoever you vote for, please just make sure you do!
Thanks
Sarah :)
Wednesday 14 November 2012
Saturday 10 November 2012
How do the media decide what is newsworthy or not?
I'm sure many will agree that amongst the news of accused paedophile Jimmy Savile that there may be many news items left unspoken of... why?
The simple truth of the matter is that if it doesn't involve celebrities or vulnerable groups, it's not worth putting in the paper. So can we ever really trust what we read from day to day? The answer is no.
The Jimmy Savile case has been plaguing the front pages of newspapers for weeks on end, yet to what avail? Is it really because there are no other stories to fill up our front pages? Of course not, it's simply the most shocking due to its content. Minor stories don't get much coverage, and one of the views I'd like to express is that they should, if not for the 'shock factor' then at least to protect the eyes of some particularly younger readers of papers or viewers of TV news.
Let's take an ordinary occurrence, such as breakfast, and see how we can make it into a news story. If it were me, eating an ordinary bowl of cornflakes for breakfast - not particularly newsworthy. Yet, if the Prime Minister ate a bowl of cornflakes but had personally murdered 6 cows to get the milk for it (and, of course, this is all hypothetical...the probability of David Cameron murdering cows is not something I would like to place any bets on either way!), it would instantly become a news story and although maybe not front page worthy, it would definitely have its place.
It shocks me that we as a country are exposing young children to such things, whether it be the PM murdering cows to get milk for breakfast or the numerous horrific allegations against Jimmy Savile that appears on the front page of a newspaper. All a child has to do is walk into a shop with their parents and attempt to look at a kid's magazine, yet right next door is a story on paedophilia.
Children are inquisitive creatures and also impressionable. On a moral ground, is this the sort of impression which our society should be immortalising in their memories?
The simple truth of the matter is that if it doesn't involve celebrities or vulnerable groups, it's not worth putting in the paper. So can we ever really trust what we read from day to day? The answer is no.
The Jimmy Savile case has been plaguing the front pages of newspapers for weeks on end, yet to what avail? Is it really because there are no other stories to fill up our front pages? Of course not, it's simply the most shocking due to its content. Minor stories don't get much coverage, and one of the views I'd like to express is that they should, if not for the 'shock factor' then at least to protect the eyes of some particularly younger readers of papers or viewers of TV news.
Let's take an ordinary occurrence, such as breakfast, and see how we can make it into a news story. If it were me, eating an ordinary bowl of cornflakes for breakfast - not particularly newsworthy. Yet, if the Prime Minister ate a bowl of cornflakes but had personally murdered 6 cows to get the milk for it (and, of course, this is all hypothetical...the probability of David Cameron murdering cows is not something I would like to place any bets on either way!), it would instantly become a news story and although maybe not front page worthy, it would definitely have its place.
It shocks me that we as a country are exposing young children to such things, whether it be the PM murdering cows to get milk for breakfast or the numerous horrific allegations against Jimmy Savile that appears on the front page of a newspaper. All a child has to do is walk into a shop with their parents and attempt to look at a kid's magazine, yet right next door is a story on paedophilia.
Children are inquisitive creatures and also impressionable. On a moral ground, is this the sort of impression which our society should be immortalising in their memories?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)