Monstrous Arrogance…

One of Britain's most senior police officers has launched a robust attack on the Conservative Party's proposal to introduce directly elected police commissioners, warning that it could lead to some forces falling under the control of far-right extremists.

Because it’s perfectly fine if they remain under the control of the current bunch of soft left appeasers and greasy pole climbers, I suppose?

Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said he was opposed to the idea and gave a warning that public apathy voting could lead to "lunatics" being elected to take charge of forces.

At least they would be elected, Sir Orde.

Not merely appointed like you, as Raedwald also points out…

…Sir Hugh, Britain's second most senior officer after Sir Paul, has called on the Conservative Party to explain exactly how it plans to alter the leadership of Britain's police forces should it be elected at the next general election.

Sorry…?

Since when does a political party – especially one not in power yet - have an obligation to ‘explain’ anything to the likes of you, rather than to the voters?
Just who the hell do you think you are?

Sir Hugh said: "No one has articulated to me or anyone else what the elected commissioner plan actually looks like. I know that Labour have stepped back from it, but the Conservatives are still committed to it. They need to talk to us about what exactly they are talking about doing.

"Do they think that the public are so interested in policing that they would turn out and vote? And for whom? A politician? Or do they mind if they get a lunatic or a retired copper? All of these questions need to be answered."

Oh, wow. Did you ever see more concentrated disrespect for the people who pay this arrogant, entitled fool his wages in your life?

It’s a wonder he didn’t end that sentence with a ‘Harrumph!’, isn’t it?

Or perhaps he did…

Asked whether he feared that a BNP or far-right candidate could seize upon this, Sir Hugh replied: "Yes, that is a risk. If you have a system whereby anyone can stand to be elected as the local police commissioner, you could have any Tom, Dick or Harriet standing. If they can muster enough support against a backdrop of public apathy, then of course it is a risk."

Frankly, I can’t see how anyone could do worse than your little unelected clique, and if they did, we, the voters, can always toss ‘em out.

Many supporters of the proposal have pointed out that it is similar to apparently successful models in the United States, but Sir Hugh rejected the suggestion that it could work here. He added: "Perhaps people should go to America before saying things like that. I know a lot of sheriffs and they seem to spend a lot of their time canvassing and preparing for elections. Is that really what the public wants for British policing?"

As opposed to what your ACPO members seem to spend their time doing?

Yes. I think it is what the British public would rather see you doing…

"If people seriously think some form of elected individual is better placed to oversee policing, I am interested to see the details of how that is going to work. Every professional bone in my body tells me that it is a bad idea that could drive a coach and horses through the current model of accountability."

No, that’s not the (supposed) ‘professional bones’ in your body telling you that.

It’s the accumulated entitlement that you’ve built up, now you think you see the possibility of some of that privilege slipping away.

And your immediate reaction to the proposals shows that you are not, and never were, fit for the position you hold.