- bear no relation to reality or research evidence, or
- other statements that seem to exist in total isolation from the rest of the document, or
- the contradictions between some parts of the draft plan and other parts, or
- the almost total disconnect between this plan and his campaign promises, or
- the fact that this plan pales when compared to the imaginative, well-constructed and insightful plans we see emerging from (say) West Midlands or Gloucestershire, or
- the absence of any innovation, or
- the absence of any real substantive focus on victims or crime prevention, or
- even the daft (and frankly insulting to the people of Thames Valley) typographic errors that should never have seen the light of day! I am thinking of this statement by the way:
(My added highlighting, naturally. I assume he meant 'legalisation'... or did he???)
But (and there is always a but…) I would draw your attention to one detail of this plan. It is the absence of detail in Annex A. Have a look for yourself. Please observe the amount of white space in the sections titled “Actions and Targets”. Now I know this is a draft plan… but I would have expected more here. Wouldn’t you?
What does this tell us about Thames Valley’s PCC? We can only speculate. Many PCCs are evidencing drive, grip, listening, good partnership with their Chief Constable and a general ability to grasp the complexities of planning a multimillion pound enterprise.
On the basis of this published draft plan, what is Anthony Stansfeld evidencing, do you think?
UPDATE: the draft plan has now been removed from the Thames Valley Police & Crime Commissioner's website in favour of the final version, naturally. I have uploaded a copy of the original draft with some commentary to my Google drive if you wish to see it. I have also just compared the two forewords. The blog post is here. (130613)