PCC thinks private sponsorship is the answer......

CKhalvashi

This is a very dangerous slope to go down, whatever happens!

What most concerns me with private sponsorship is what will happen with a company if a director is suspected of criminal activity for example, as surely there'll be a pure conflict of interest here.

Your thought please!

CK

vivatifosi

I think it depends on what the quid pro quo is. I don't think it is a great idea, but I don't think it is any worse than having sponsorship of say academy schools.

I don't see the issue being prosecuting directors - a well written partnership agreement would put appropriate protocols in place to ensure this is still feasible. I'm more worried that if the sponsors were say, an IT firm, they would want to influence the purchase of systems that may not be the best way forward.

So what's in it for the company? If I was a company boss with this kind of funding, I'd want to be aligning myself with something that can only be seen as a force for good such as a children's hospice or a school. Firms won't want to be dragged down by another Stephen Lawrence, Hillsborough or other such high profile case. I appreciate these are few and far between, but it is still a worrying notion for the sponsoring organisation.

MacMickster

It worries me that this is even being considered. Yes there is an obvious appearance of a conflict of interest. The law must be applied in a clearly even-handed manner. Justice must be seen to be done. If people don't believe that to be the case then law and order can ultimately break down.

I also have visions of police officers with the Wonga logo on their uniforms and a supply of business cards in their pocket.

"A victim of robbery sir? Strapped for cash at the moment? You might want to give these people a call.

What? Find the scrote that robbed you and get your money back? Not likely guv. I've got sales targets to hit."

princeofpounds

I don't think it is a great idea, but I don't think it is any worse than having sponsorship of say academy schools.

I disagree. I think it's very different and very much worse to sponsorship of schooling.

State schooling may be a state-provided service but there is an element of choice for the citizen; they can choose private schools, usually apply to a few state schools, they can even home-school.

And schooling is a charitable activity which makes it suitable for donation, even with strings attached.

The police force involves the use of coercive power by the state, there is no element of consumer choice in its use. That's a very different situation.

N1AK

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Your thought please!

I think the slippery slope angle can be over-used. I can't see a police force, including individual officers, risking political and legal consequences to try and cover up for a business that is giving them less than <£1m a year.

There's plenty of things we could do to use our money more effectively to decrease crime but they aren't politically popular (rehabilitation etc) and people want to see more police officers on the street so the money has to come from somewhere.

mcfisco

Generali

Personally I'd file that under L for ludicrous. It'll never happen, it's a slow news day.

Shouldn't The Daily Mail be off discouraging vaccinations? That's more their schtick.